fihm LL}. I THE RELATIONsHIR aEIwEEN COUNSELOR CLIENT CULIuRAL BACKGROUND sImLARII-v AND , COUNSELING RROOREss ~ 2555: Thesis {or Hm Degree of DB D 5' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY :_ Alex James Cade ' ” " ° ' 1963 THESIS llllflllllfllyflflllflfllwnfl"will“!!! This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Relationship Between Counselor—Client Cultural Background Similarity and Counseling Progress presented by Alex James Cade has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D . degree in Education 441/ 14%;“ t/ Major professor Date June 28, 1963 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELOR-CLIENT CULTURAL BACKGROUND SIMILARITY AND COUNSELING PROGRESS by Alex J. Cade This study explores the relationship between counseling progress and counselor—client similarity with respect to certain cultural conditions existing during the period which ranged from birth to age 17. The social class factors isolated and defined by Warner were found to have a noticeable influence on the in— dividual's ”concept of the ideal personality" in his society (a basic concept underlying the counseling progress variable). Consequently, Warner's Index of Status Characteristics (I.S.C.) constituted a major aspect of the cultural background factors considered. Treatment of I.S.C. factors involved Warner's original method of quantification. In the case of cultural background factors not included in the I.S.C. , quantification was achieved by assigning positive and negative weights to counselor-client agreement and disagreement relative to each factor. These differential weights were based upon the degree to which each factor seemed to influence the concept of the ideal Alex J. Cade personality. The data used in deriving the weights for these factors were obtained on 495 subjects. Counseling progress was defined as a narrowing of the self—ideal discrepancy which was held to represent an increase in self—satisfaction. Scales were developed for assessing the self-concept, the ideal self-concept, and the concept of the ideal personality. These measuring devices were validated on divergent diagnostic groups and were also found to be sufficiently reliable. The items were contributed by the 495 individuals in their effort to describe their concepts of the ideal personality in their society. This group consisted of graduate and undergraduate college students and prison inmates. The major theory underlying this study is that cultural ex— periences tend to condition the individual's concept of the ideal per- sonality and that his ideal self-concept is significantly influenced by this concept. It was hypothesized that the concept of the ideal per- sonality is relatively ‘stable but the ideal self—concept was assumed to be capable of changing over the counseling period. It was predicted that to the extent which the counselor and client shared similar cultural backgrounds, the self-ideal discrepancy would decrease over the period of counseling. It was further predicted that to the extent which the counselor and client shared Alex J. Cade similar cultural backgrounds, the client's self-concept would advance toward the counselor's ideal self-concept during the course of counseling. It was hypothesized that individuals receiving personal adjust- ment counseling would show more progress than individuals failing to receive such counseling when tested over a similar period of time. It was also hypothesized that counseling progress is nega- tively related to the extent to which the client exceeds his counselor in terms of background social standing. Finally, it was hypothesized that the extent of movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self—concept is positively related to counselor-client cultural background similarity. Three groups were involved: (1) The Therapy Group, con- sisting of 20 graduate and undergraduate college students involved in personal adjustment counseling; (2) The Nontherapy Group, con— sisting of 37 undergraduate college students who were not involved in, and had no history of, such counseling; and (3) The Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits, consisting of 29 undergraduates. Seven counselors participated in the study. The members of the Therapy Group were given the self scales at the beginning and termination of counseling. They were also given an inventory for assessing cultural background information at the termination of counseling. Each counselor was given the self scales at the beginning of counseling with his first client used in the study Alex J. Cade and again at the termination of counseling with his last client used in the study. At this point he was also given the inventory for assessing cultural background information. The Nontherapy Group was given the self scales during the pretherapy period and again during the posttherapy period. The group consisting of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits was given the self scales at the beginning and end of their counseling period (approximately three months). Only the Therapy Group showed significant progress (as determined by the narrowing of the self—ideal discrepancy) over the counseling period. Neither the concept of the ideal personality nor the ideal self-concept changed significantly over the period of counseling. The self-ideal and the self—ideal personality discre- pancies were narrowed as a function of the self-concept moving toward the ideal self-concept and the concept of the ideal personality. The latter concepts did not move significantly toward the self-concept over the period of counseling. Counseling progress as defined by the narrowing of the self- ideal discrepancy was found to be positively related to counselor- client cultural background similarity. However, when the education factor was included in the I.S.C. score, the coefficient Of corre— lation between these variables failed to achieve significance at the desired level of confidence. Alex J. Cade The hypothesis which stated that counseling progress is negatively related to the extent to which the client exceeds his counselor in terms of background social standing was supported by the results. The coefficient of correlation between the extent of movement of the client's self—concept toward the counselor's ideal self-concept and counselor—client cultural background simi- larity failed to achieve significance at the desired level of confi- dence. However, the results were of such to suggest that these variables might be positively related. Counselor judgment with respect to progress made by the client was found to be significantly and positively related to counseling progress, as determined by the narrowing of the self—ideal dis- crepancy, only when "negative progress" scores were treated as having zero value. When the extent of "negative progress" was taken into consideration, the coefficient of correlation between these variables failed to achieve significance at the desired level of confidence. It was suggested that the study should be replicated using a larger and more representative sample. The need for isolating additional factors which, when treated with reSpect to counselor— client similarity, might be important relative to the counseling pro— gress variable was pointed out. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNSELOR—CLIENT CULTURAL BACKGROUND SIMILARITY AND COUNSELING PROGRESS By Alex James Cade A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1963 G Q‘iS’flvi ‘3, f l 3. lioi‘i- ACKNOW'LEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his thanks to those persons who offered encouragement and gave assistance during the four years' period embracing the conception and completion of this study. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Gregory Miller, Chair— man of the writer's Doctoral Committee, without whose guidance insurmountable obstacles probably would have been encountered. The writer also wishes to express his appreciation to the other members of his Doctoral Committee for their assistance: Drs. Buford. Stefflre, Charles Hanley and Fred Vescolani. Special thanks are extended to Dr. ‘Douglas Dunham, Chair- man of the Division of Social Science, Michigan State University, who gave considerable guidance during the conception 'of this study. Dr'.‘ Dunham also assisted in the development of some of the measuring instruments used in this study. Appreciation is extended to Drs. Albert E. Levak and Melvin J. Segal of Michigan State University and Harold Phelps of Tennessee State University who also assisted in the deve10p— ment and standardization of the measuring instruments. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Arthur M. Vener for his I assistance in the isolation of important cultural background factors, the same which constitute one of the main' variables treated in“ this investigation. Dr. Donald L. Grummon also gave assistance during the conception of the study. Thanks are extended to Dr. Walter F. Johnson who gave Considerable advice and assistance relative to selecting the ex— Perimental sample. . Special thanks are extended to the following persons who gave a great deal of their time to this study and without whose assistance this study could not have been completed: Drs. J. Morse, H. Grater, and B. Kell of the Michigan State Univer— Sity Counseling Center; Dr. Ben Ard of Central Michigan Uni— ve I'Sity, and Mr. Donald Neill of Western Michigan University. ii The writer wishes to extend his appreciation to Dr. Rosalind Dymond Cartwright who, by means of correspondence, assisted the writer considerably relative to methods for assessing empathic understanding . Special thanks are extended to Miss Sharon Weinert who, in addition to spending many hours typing the manuscript, assisted in correcting and organizing its content. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Robert Hudson, Malcolm D. Salinger and Donald L. Hecker of Ferris Institute and Dr. Arnold L. Form, Dr. Donald W. Kilbourn, Mrs. Dorothy Schaeffer and Mr. Donald P. Bertsch of Central Michigan University for their assistance and guidance. _ Finally, the writer would like to express thanks to the following persons who assisted in the compiling of the results of this study: Mr. \Afilliam Sims, Mr. Robert Brandon, Mr. James McKinley, Mr. Roger Lockwood, Miss Linda Baer, Mr. Gilbert Terry, Mr. Alfred Phillips, Mr. Jerry Phillips, Mr. Mlliam Rumage, Mr. Merritt C. MacLeod, Mr. Edward Bragg, Mr. Roscoe Smith, Mr. David Simpson and Mr. Troy Browning, Jr. ~ I \l/ \l< dz \I/ 4‘ rp IF /I\ a. q. . [F iii C hapte r I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GENERAL PURPOSE AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND fintrOduCtionOOO0.0.0.0000. 00000000 0.000.000.00001 Theoretical VieWPOintS. C O O O O O O O O 0000000000 O O O O O O 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE Approaching the ' Problem" . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . '7 The Problem......... ......... 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Similarity and Interpersonal Communication. . . . . . . 13 The Self-Concept and Counseling Progress . . . . . . 16 Cultural Factors and Personality Traits ‘ and‘ fIIendenCies O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.00.0.000021.’ HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED.................33 PROCEDURES Measuring Instruments 36 Operational Definition of Terms and Delimitations . . 75 Subjects and Method of Collecting Data . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Means of Analysis of Data.......................88 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pretherapy Group Differentials With Respect to Measures of the Phenomenal Self. . . .' . . . . . . .92 Changes in Self-Perceptions ' as ' a Function of Counseling................................96 The Relationship Between Increase in Self— ’ Satisfaction 'Over the Period of Counseling and Counselors' Judgments with' Respect to Counseling Progress........................103 Counseling Progress and Counselor-“Client Cultural Background Similarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 The Movement of the Client's Self-Concept Toward the Counselor's Ideal Self-Concept Over the Period of Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 iv Chapter VII. VIII . Page IMPLICATIONS, CRITICISMS, AND SUGGESTED FURTHER RESEARCH Introduction...................................119 Counseling Progress...........................119 Counselor—Client Cultural Background Similarity and Counseling Progress . . . . ..... . 126 Size and Representativeness of the Sample . . . . . . 129 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................131 BIBLIOGRAPHYOOO0.0.OOOOOOOOOOOO00000.0000000135 APPENDICES 00.000.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOluZ Table II. III. IV. VII . VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Page Mean Scale Values and Standard Deviations for Five DiagnOStic Groups. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 58 Scales for Making Primary Ratings of Four Status CharacteriStiCSOCCOOOOOOOOOOOCO ..... .00.. 70 Sex, Age, Academic Level, and Number of Interview Hours for the Constituents of the Experimental client group O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 79 Mean Changes in Self-Concept, Self-Ideal Dis- crepancy and Self-Ideal Personality Discrepancy Scores for the Three Groups and Counselors Over the Counseling Period.................... 97 Coefficients of Correlation Between Pretherapy and Posttherapy Self Scores and t-values for the Significance of the Differences Between Pretherapy and Posttherapy Means for the Therapy Groups 98 Coefficients of Correlation Between ,Pretherapy and Posttherapy Ideal Self and Ideal Per- sonality Scores and the Significance of the Differences Between Pretherapy and Post- therapy Means Relative to These Scores . . . . . . . . 101 Relationship Between Change in the Ideal Self Concept and Change in the Concept of the Ideal Personality Over the Period of Counseling .102 Coeflicients of Correlation Between Judged Progress and Increased Phenomenal Self—Satisfaction Over the Period of Counseling.......................1OI+ Counseling Progress (Improvement) and Counse- lor-Client Cultural Background Similarity Scores.10€> vi LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Page X. Coefficients of Correlation Between Counseling Progress Variable and Counselor-Client Cultural Background Similarity Variable . . . . . . . . . 112 XI. Coefficients of Correlation Between the Score Representing Movement of the Client's Self— Concept Toward the Counselor's Ideal Self-Concept and Counselor-Client Cultural Background Similarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 vii Appendix I . II . III . IV. VIII. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Questionnaire for Background Information. . . . . . . . . . .11+3 Judged Progress Scale...........................150 Self-Concept Scale..... ..... 153 Ideal Self Scale........................ ....... ...165 Ideal Personality Scale ............ ......1'7)+ Characteristics (Their Weights , Frequencies , and Weighted Frequencies) Ascribed to the Ideal Personality by LL95 Subjects .. . . . ..185 Other Cultural Background Factors and Their Weights for Counselor—Clients Agreement . . . . . . . .203 Results Obtained by Means of the Study of Values. . .206 \riii CHAPTER I GENERAL PURPOSE AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Introduction This study explores certain aSpects of client-counselor similarity and investigates the effect which these variables might have upon progress made by the client in the counseling situation. In this study, empathic ability, or the ability of the counselor to understand his client, is handled as an inferred variable or theoretical construct and really does not enter, in a functional sense, into the design of the study. This variable or construct is neither operationally defined nor experimentally manipulated. The main variables are counselor-client cultural background similarity and counseling progress. The cultural background fac- tors considered are those which tend to characterize the individual's objective cultural experiences during the period which ranges from birth to age 17. The particular cultural background factors treated during the course of this study and the term "counseling progress" are defined later. Theoretical Viewpoints An attempt is made to gear the design of this investigation as closely as possible to the tenets propounded by phenomenologically oriented theorists. On the other hand, some of the variables which fall within the scope of this study emerge from social psychological theory and are fundamentally nonphenomenological. In the case of these latter variables, the study is so designed as to manipulate the inferred phenomenological effects of their functioning. Ultimately, then, as treated herein, these variables also become theoretical constructs. As implied above, the design of the present study draws heavily upon both phenomenological and social psychological theory. In general, on the surface, there seems to be great theoretical diversions between phenomenologically oriented psychologists and counselors and contemporary social psychologists and social psy— chiatrists concerning the question of communality of motivational factors, attitudinal activity, and emotional experiencing and respon— siveness. Since the present experimental design is based upon tenets emerging from both of these schools of thought, it is deemed necessary and expedient to discuss at this time the aspects of these seemingly divergent theories which are related to the variables manipulated by this investigation. From a Phenomenological Point of View. One of the chief constructs underlying the present research is that of the self—concept. Self—concept theorists are, of necessity, phenomenologically oriented. Self—concept theorists believe that "one cannot understand and predict human behavior without knowledge of the subject's conscious perceptions of his environment and of his self as he sees it in relation to the environment" (83, p. 6). These theorists are considered phenomenological in orientation because they accord a "central role to conscious perception, cognition, and feelings" (83, p- 6). The investigator would like to hasten to say that the term "phe— nomenology" is not held by all theorists to refer only to aspects of "direct awareness." In fact, most phenomenologically oriented theo— rists do not hesitate to give credence to the concept of unconscious motivations and their effects upon the total personality, including the "self—concept." With respect to this aspect of phenomenological theory, orientation becomes a matter of degree with those persons usually labeled phenomenological theorists being inclined to put'most emphasis upon conscious experiences and awareness and with those who are usually labeled nonphenomenological theorists tending to be more con— cerned about unconscious impulses, propensities, and dynamics. Carl Rogers, who is generally considered one of the leading phenomenologically oriented self theorists, while gearing his own prac— tice and research predominately to the conscious self—concept, does not attempt to deny the dynamic functioning of unconscious elements and factors. He has this to say on the matter: "He (the individual) may have some experiences which are inconsistent with this perception, but he either denies these experiences to awareness or symbolizes them in such a way that they are consistent with his general picture" (65, p. 321). Rogers further says, "While these concepts are non— verbal, and may not be present in consciousness, this is no barrier to their functioning as guiding principles" (6, p. LL98) . The following quotations are considered a summary of Rogers' conception of the self—concept: "The self—concept or self—structure may be thought of as an itemized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of one's charac— teristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and to the environment; the value qualities which are perceived as associated with experiences and objectives; the goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive or negative valence" (62, p. 136). — - ~ — — ~ — "This configuration... as Raimy says. . .serves to regulate behavior and may serve to account for uniformities in personalities" (62, p. 91). — — — — — — — "As long as the self—Gestalt is firmly organized, and no contradictory material is even dimly perceived, then positive self feelings may exist, the self may be seen as worthy and acceptable and conscious tension is minimal. Behavior is con— sistent with the organized hypotheses and concepts of the self—structure" (62, p. 191). Another major characteristic of phenomenological theory is the consideration for the uniqueness of the experiences of the individual. ./ Phenomenological theorists and self theorists hold that the chief mo— tivators of behavior and attitudes lie within what is termed the indi— Vidual's "phenomenal field" and one cannot understand or predict human behavior in the absence of knowledge of the nature of this field or, as Lewin (1+6) puts it, of the individual's psychological en— vironment. fTh’eflhere and now of experience is considered by these theorists to be of utmost importance, that is, it is their contention that historical factors are important, from the standpoint of personal adjustment, only to the extent to which they influence or affect the phenomenal field of the individual./ Consequently, phenomenologically . oriented researchers do not attempt to postulate the cultural constructs responsible for attitudinal and behavioral reactions and emotional states as relevant material for the determination of progress as a function of psychotherapy/ These researchers hold that one cannot generalize concerning the effects of environmental stimuli upon the individual because these stimuli are modified by the individual's phenomenal field and, although these stimuli might tend to modify the existing phenomenal field, the nature of this modification is unpredictable by other persons because of the uniqueness of the individual's perception of these stimuli which is, in the final analysis, based upon his already existing self—concept.) These researchers regard empathic ability, or the ability of the counselor or therapist to understand his client” to be axiomatically a determinant of progress in psychotherapy. y/Being somewhat circum— scribed as a result of their phenomenological orientation, they do not endeavor to define, in general terms, the dynamics involved in the development of empathic ability. They do not attempt to identify the process by which such ability is achieved. On this note, we turn our, attention to social psychological theory. From a Social Pchhological Point of View. Contemporary social psychologists seem to generally subscribe to the notion that all behavior and behavioral and attitudinal tendencies are learned by the individual as a result of the interaction of biological,‘ social, and general environmental influences. Although self theorists do not necessarily deny this principle, they do not systematically postulate a connection between this principle and the development of the phenomenal field or self—concept. On the subject of empathic ability, then, the social psychologist would probably say that ability ' with respect to any type of interpersonal interaction is nothing less, nor more, than social skills, and social skills are, in the final analysis, learned attitudinal and behavioral patterns. .If these are learned patterns, then we should be able to identify, define, and possibly manipulate some of the factors involve—d, such as, avail- ability of what is to be learned, the readiness for learning, and the general climate for learning. The major social psychological theories underlying the design of this study are listed later on under the heading "Postulates Underlying Research Procedures." CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE Approaching the Problem According to Carl Rogers, the self-concept is an organized, fluid but consistent, conceptual pattern of the characteristics of the "I" or the ”me" which are admissible into awareness, together with the values attached to those concepts. This concept was discussed rather fully in the previous section of this manuscript. This implies that many single self-perceptions, standing in rela- tion to the other, exist for the same individual. It has been dem- onstrated that it is possible for the individual to order these self— / percepts along a subjective continuum from "unlike me" to "like me" (8). Thus, if a given characteristic such as ”passiveness" is held by the individual to apply to himself, this characteristic may be perceived by the individual to be more or less like himself than another charac- teristic, such as "introversion." Hence, if asked, the individual in question might say, "It is more characteristic of me that I am passive than it is that I am introverted. However, I am both passive and introverted . " This subjective scale does not, however, yield any clues as to the values attached to the self-concept. For this purpose, the notion of the ideal self—concept is employed. The ideal self—concept has been defined by Butler as "the organized conceptual pattern of characteristics and emotional states which the individual consciously holds as desirable (and undesirable) for himself" (8). This defi— nition is deemed satisfactory for this study. The assumption is that the individual is able to order his self—perceptions along a continuum of value from "What I would most like to be" to "What "I least would like to be" or, to put it another way, from "like my ideal" to "unlike my ideal." This subjective scale could then yield a distribution of the same characteristics of self—perceptions which were ordered along the scale of "like me" to "unlike me." The agreement between the placements of a given character— istic on the self scale and the ideal scale would yield an indication of self—esteem. It would indicate, operationally, not only the way in which the individual perceives himself as possessing this given char— acteristic but the degree to which he values this state would also be indicated. *The degree of agreement between self and ideal on all these characteristics would yield an index of self—esteem or self-value. Self—esteem is generally regarded by self theorists as being almost synonymous with personal adjustment and, thus, an increase in self— \/ esteem or self—value is herein considered the chief goal of personal adjustment counseling. It has been demonstrated that personal ad— justment is conducive to improved social adjustment (6b,). Ascribing personal maladjustment to the discrepancy between the self—concept and the ideal self by no means constitutes a new concept in psychological thinking. There, however, is another group of perceptive qualities held by the individual which the writer has endeavored to investigate. This group of perceptive qualities, conditioned chiefly by cultural phenomena in more or less the same manner as the ideal self, is herein referred to, for the lack of more descriptive terminology, as the ”concept of mg ideal personality." This construct, as it is used in this study, is defined as the organized conceptual pattern of characteristics and emotional states that the in— dividual consciously holds as desirable for if} individual in the society of which he himself is a part. It is the writer's contention that, al- though all perceptions of values in a given culture are not directly instrumental in the formation of the ideal self, they do exert influence on personal adjustment. It is conceivable that all of these perceptions combine to give rise to the individual's concept of what characteristics and emotional traits the "ideal person" should have. This ideal person may or may not be the individual's "ideal self" or what E "would like to be," but what "an individual in my society should be like." This would exert an influence on personal adjustment in that the subject's concept of the "ideal personality" sets the limit for the development of the ideal self and, thus, indirectly influences the rela— tionship between the latter and the self—concept. If a vast discrepancy 10 between the self—concept and the ideal self gives rise to a 11degree" of personal maladjustment and this discrepancy can be quantified, it does not matter in a strict sense whether the self—concept is by a given quantity depreciated or whether the ideal self is advanced by the same quantity. If we adhered rigidly to this theory we would assume that the individual would be nonetheless personally malad— justed. However, it seems logical to assume that a ”significant depreciation in the ideal self might lead to undesirable social conse— quences or certain types of social maladjustment. If increased self—esteem is the chief objective of personal ad— justment counseling and if increased self—esteem comes about as a result of bringing the self—concept and the ideal self into a more com— patible range, for counseling to be successful, either the self—concept must be elevated in the direction of the ideal self or the ideal self must be depreciated in the direction of the self—concept or, perhaps, both. Considering the above discussion with respect to the tenets held Concerning the possible nature of the formation ‘of the ideal self and the concept of the ideal personality in one's society, it seems that Similarity between the cultural background of the counselor and that Of the client might well have some bearing on the probability of the ideal self being advanced or deflated, or of the self—concept being depreciated or elevated as a result of counseling. It is expected 11 that the counselor's consciously or unconsciously motivated behavior and attitudes would be of such in the counseling situation that they would tend to draw the client's self—concept in the direction of the counselor's ideal self concept. This is merely an assumption in— asmuch as there have been no research findings which tend to support this notion. Consequently, at best, this must be con- sidered an exploratory study. It is theorized that cultural background factors might exert a direct or indirect influence on the movement of the self-concept and the ideal self concept during the counseling process inasmuch as they enter into the situation by means of the concept of the ideal personality. Since the concept of the ideal personality is believed to be conditioned by objective cultural experiences ranging from birth to maturity, it is considered to be a relatively stable phenomenon, that is, in the case of adult personalities. From the standpoint of theory, then, it would seem to hold that counselor-client similarity with respect to cultural background factors might exert a significant influence on the move- ment of the client's self-concept and/or ideal self concept during the course of counseling and, consequently, might constitute an important determinant of counseling progress. The Problem The problem, specifically stated, is three-fold: 1. To isolate and define some of the cultural background factors which tend to influence the concept of the ideal personality. 12 To determine whether or not counselor- client similarity relative to these cultural background factors tend to influence coun— seling progress (as defined by means of the narrowing of the self—ideal discrepancy). To ascertain the degree to which this means of assessing counseling progress is related to overt indications of progress as a result of therapy and as seen by the therapist. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF LITERATURE Similarity and Interpersonal Communication The following researchers have all conducted studies for the pur— pose of ascertaining some aspects of the nature of "empathic under- standing" and its effects upon counseling: Rosalind Dymond (13, 1A., 15); H. C. Lindgren (47); I. E. Bender and A. H. Hastorf (LL); and N. L. Gage and L. J. Cronbach (28). Most of these researchers used the rather pOpular "empathy test" recently developed by Dymond and almost all of them found their re— sults to be as inconsistent and to have as many ramifications of possible meaning as the test itself. Lesser (45), using the O-sort method to assess counseling progress, found that counselor empathic under- standing was not related to counseling progress. He advanced the notion that perhaps a maximum of empathic understanding is not neces- sarily most conducive to counseling progress. As he puts it, "Often- times an optimal amount of something is less than the maximum possible" (LLB, p. 88) . This notion is in keeping with Wolberg's feeling that some tension is necessary for the purpose of motivatinfgw-the patient to work through his problems. Wolberg states, "Tension acts as a driving force by creating in the patient an incentive for change through 13 1.4 active participation in the therapeutic process. On the other hand, a relaxed, tensionless state tends to diminish. activity" ("80, p. 178) . Bordin also feels that some anxiety is necessary for counseling pro— gress (5, p. 146). Lesser noted that the continuing clients in his study appeared to be better understood by their counselors, but clients who terminated showed more progress. He concluded that this situation "suggests that empathic understanding may 'keep' a client but may not necessarily help him" (LL8, p. 88). Thus, empathy, as it is related to the dynamics involved in psychotherapy, is still an unsolved mystery. Concerning the influence of similarity between individuals upon their attitudinal and emotional reactions to each other, however, we do have some rather encouraging research findings. Subsequently to administering a personality trait inventory to thirty—eight female nursing students, Halpern (31) had each student predict the test performance of five other students, two of whom were most similarto herself, two least similar, ”and one in the middle with respect to similarity to herself. Each subject also indicated whether or not she was pleased with herself on each of the personality characteristics on the inventory. The results were as follows: 1. More accurate predictions were made for those who were similar to the subjects than those dissimilar. 2. Greater predictive accuracy was found on those items which the subject and the person whom she 15 predicted marked similarly than on items they marked differently. 3. A greater accuracy of prediction occurred on those items with which the subject was pleas-ed with her— self, than’on those with which she was dissatisfied with herself. 1+. There was no difference in accuracy of prediction between those who were similar to the subject and those dissimilar to the subject on items which the subject and the person whom she predicted marked differently (nonconcordant items). 5. There was no correlation between the ability to predict on nonconcordant items and the overall ability to predict. In discussing these results, Halpern seems] to feel that they were not necessarily due to conscious attribution of one's feelings to others, but that a subject might more easily recognize feelings and patterns of behavior in others if he had experienced them him— self. Referring to results obtained by means of a similar procedure, R. D. Normal (53) concludes, in a fashion, that others are judged by analogy with ourselves, and the less valid the analogy, the less accurate the judgment. After still another study of this type, Wolf concludes with this remark: "A man can only understand what he has already exper— ienced" (81). This view is vividly expressed by Hollingshead and Redlich in connection with psychiatric treatment. They state: "All too often, psychotherapy runs into difficulties when the therapist and the patient belong to different 16 classes. In these instances, the values of the ther— apist are too divergent from those of the patient and communication becomes difficult between them" (36) . These authors point out that the psychiatrists whom they inter- viewed were irritated, as a group, by their lower class patients' inability to think in their terms. Hollingshead and Redlich feel that this social class distance leads to a lack of understanding between therapists and patients. They believe that this is a major reason why neurotic patients in the two lower classes of the groups which they studied tended to drOp out of treatment much faster than those in the higher classes. The Self—Concept and Counseling Progress In the literature it is found that the phenomenal self is approached from varying perspectives. A survey of the literature discloses that many terms have been employed to describe aspects of the phenomenal self, such as, self-satisfaction, self-acceptance, self—esteem, self- favorability, congruence between self and ideal self and discrepancies between self and ideal self. These terms have varying meanings among those who theorize concerning them or those who treat them as eXperimental variables. One researcher might proceed to study the phenomenal self by investigating self—esteem which might be con- ceived as the extent to which one is proud of himself as he is. Another might approach the study of the phenomenal self by means 1’7 of investigating the construct “self—acceptance" which the investigator might hold to mean the capacity for accepting faults as well as assets, while still another researcher might emphasize the insightful aspects of the concept of self—acceptance. The Assessment of the Self—Com. Despite such divergencies as mentioned above, most self—theory oriented researchers consider the phenomenal self to be made up of predominately conscious materials and, consequently, they contend that many of its aspects can be assessed by means of nonprojective methods. Although several different techniques have been used to assess various aspects of the phenomenal self, the Q—sort method described by Stephenson (’76) has been most widely employed. This technique is generally used to assess self—regard. Wth respect to the assessment of phenomenal self—regard, typically, this technique inVolves having the subject sort a rather large number of person— ality—descriptive items into nine piles which are arranged on a con— tinutum according to the degree to which each is characteristic of the SU33.ject's self. The subject is forced to place specific numbers of items in each pile so as to effect a quasi—normal distribution of items. The subject is also asked to sort these same items on a continuum baLsed upon the degree to which they are characteristic of his ideal f0? himself. The usual procedure requires that each item in the self— description be assigned a value from one to nine according to the 18 pile in which the subject has chosen to put it. In a like manner, each item in the ideal sort is assigned a value from one to nine, according to the pile in which the subject has chosen to place it. Then a correlation coefficient is computed between the pile values of the items, as sorted by a given subject to describe his self, and the pile values of the same items, as sorted to describe his ideal self. Pearson r may be used inasmuch as the forced sorting procedure has caused both distributions to become quasi—normal. These correlations, usually referred to in the literature as "self—ideal correlations," are generally considered (by those who use them) to constitute an index of self-esteem or self—regard. M. In the literature are found various lists of items which have been used, in the manner described above, for the purpose of assessing the degree of self—regard or self—esteem for given individuals. Perhaps the most popular of such lists is the one described by Butler and Haigh (8). These authors compiled a list of one hundred self— referent statements uttered by clients during therapeutic interviews. This method was used because it was deemed necessary that such Statements refer to attributes which are of some importance to the Self-concept. The authors assumed that this requirement was met inasmuch as the statements consisted of remarks made spontaneously cluring the course of nondirective therapy. However, from the stand— pOint of theory, there is some contradiction here in that self theorists l9 rigidly hold that no two selves are alike or, to put it another way, no two selves are made up of the same conceptual and experiential mater— ials. On the other hand, some investigators have selected items which are known or thought to represent specified trait or need constructs. These procedures have been questioned on the basis that they may not be appropriate to the definition of phenomenal field characteristics ('76) . Cronbach and Gleser, referring to similarity between profiles, suggest that general similarity can be inferred only if we have some way of knowing that our self—concept measure samples all, or at least a large proportion, of the significant dimensions of the phenomenal self (8’7). Similarity as used by these authors in this context em— braces similarity between self and ideal. Thus, the problem of item Sampling relevant to the concept of the phenomenal self has, almost Without exception, plagued those who seek to design procedures for Studying the construct of self—regard. Reliability. Since it is axiomatic among self theorists that the Self is fluid and ever changing, the problem of reliability of the in— St1"uments used for assessing self—regard has caused much concern. Since self—concept is held to be ever changing, it is obvious that one c‘—annot successfully use the test—retest method for determining the I‘eliability of his instruments. On the basis of theory, one would expect changes in the organization of the self—concept from time to 20 time and, consequently, changes in responses on instrument items over a given period of time, even if the individual has not been involved in therapy, would not necessarily mean that the instrument is unreliable. On the other hand, of course, it would not mean that it is reliable. The split—half method is also of little value in that it is more of a measure of internal consistency, which is a form of validity in the final analysis, and not an indication of reliability in terms of individual consistency as a function of time. To cope with this dilemma, Hilden has suggested that alternate forms might be constructed by drawing sets of items at random from a specified universe (35). Being aware of the shortcomings mentioned above, self—theory oriented researchers have continued to use these methods and instruments for the purpose of assessing counseling progress. We will now turn our attention to some of their findings. C3C>unseling Progress and Self—Regard. Wylie has made an exhaustive study of research relating to the SeIii—concept and counseling progress. She found that "only four studies COl'npare counseled to noncounseled subjects" (83, p. 66). Wylie re- ports that, ”Caplan (1957) found significant increases of self—ideal con- gruence among seventeen problem boys who received group counseling 51S contrasted to seventeen noncounseled controls roughly matched for I.Q., sex, school record, and economic status" (83, p. 66). In this Study it was also observed that counseled boys improved in academic 21 achievement in certain courses whereas noncounseled boys did not. Butler and Haigh (‘8), using the "Q—sort method with the items which they developed (mentioned in the preceding section), imposed two types of controls in their attempt to assess the effect of coun— seling upon self-regard. The first control was effected by testing clients at the beginning and end of a sixty—days' precounseling period. The second operation involved a nontherapy control group. These authors report that the clients who waited sixty days for therapy showed no improvement in self—ideal congruence over the waiting period. However, they did observe improvement in self—ideal con— gruence when precounseling results were compared with follow-up results for the same clients. The nontherapy controls also showed no improvement in terms of increased self—ideal congruence. From theseresults, it appears that, not only does counseling influence the movement of the self—concept, but it causes it to move in the hypothe— sized direction. Rogers and Dymond (61+), after assigning an adjustment score to Q—sorts effected by their subjects, observed that counseling had affected their adjustment score in more or less the same manner as it affected self-ideal congruence in the case of Butler's and Haigh's subjects. There have been studies which did not employ nontherapy con— trols. Ewing (17) conducted a study wherein self—regard was assessed 22 by means of a five—point rating scale for one hundred trait names. These traits were rated for typical and ideal self. He obtained a significant positive correlation between counselor's estimate of improvement and the amount of change in the pattern of self-reports on the trait names. The change in the self figure was toward the counselor figure, the ideal figure, and the culturally approved figure. 'Rosenman (66) compared clients who were judged successful in counseling with those judged unsuccessful. He reports that the self—conceptions of successful clients suggest greater increases in positive self—evaluation, positive self—directed actions, and positive other—directed actions. The foregoing is a review of findings in studies where either control groups were used or where judged improvement in therapy was compared With self—concept changes. There are other studies which could be listed wherein neither of these criteria were used to validate measured self—concept movement. For the most part, in these studies the investigators used the discrepancies between results of projective techniques or other standardized personality tests administered before and after counseling as their criteria. Most of these latter investigators report that certain changes in the results of the projective techniques or personality tests which they used over a period of counseling accompanied improvement as inferred from the nature of the movement of the self—concept during counseling. 2.3. Most of these procedures which we have discussed above can be questioned relative to their validity. "Since self theorists hold that the self-concept of each individual is unique and, although it does tend to change, thepattern of change is also unique, it seems that one can never be sure that he has obtained a truly matching control group. Moreover, there could be systematic extraneous factors affecting the therapy group but not the nontherapy group. It is possible that the therapy group is inclined to oblige the therapist, in many instances, by effecting a low self—concept score at the beginning of counseling and a relatively, high self—concept score at the termination of counseling. It is obvious that in cases where judgments concerning counseling progress are used as the criterion for determining the meaning of the movement of the self-concept during counseling or therapy little ob- jectivity can be assured. Such a criterion seems to be contaminated because many of the factors entering into judgment in this connection Could very well be the same factors embraced by the material upon Which self—reports are given to effect the self—concept picture. Studies wherein projective test results are used as criteria for determining the meaning of the movement of the self—concept seem to be incompatible with theory relative to this construct. If the self— Concept is really an organization of conscious perceptions about one's Self and the movement of this construct constitutes the chief concern Of self-theory researchers, then whether or not this movement corres— ponds with projective test results (materials which are held to lie 24 chiefly outside of the scope of awareness) is of little importance. This procedure seems to have significance analogous to that of relating the size of Florida grapefruits to the climate in the State of Michigan. Cultural F actors and Personality Traits and Tendencies According to Sears, "The status level of the family in the social hierarchy determines the particular mode of child rearing conventionally followed" (68). Warner, considering results obtained from his studies of social class in America, tends to agree with this notion (80). Gist and Halbert have pointed out how differences in child rearing practices can result in the development, on the part of the child, among other things, of differential social attitudes (29) . Of course, there are many other cultural factors which act as determinants of the type of interpersonal attitudes which eventually become organized within the personality structure. According to ‘5‘ Miller and Swanson, "The scope of early socialization also includes the more informal but probably more effective training by the age peers. From such diverse learning ex— periences with specific patterns of identification they produce, there gradually emerge differences in ex— pressive styles, ego defense systems, and moral controls" (50). In Psychotherapy and Culture Conflicts, Seward (70) demon— strated, in general terms, some of the relationships referred or 25 alluded to by Miller and Swanson with selective subcultures in con- temporary United States. She fOund definite and definable differences in personality characteristics and expressive tendencies (especially interpersonal tendencies) between individuals who were reared in, and who were members of, different subcultures. Relative to the trend toward increased consideration of cultural factors in the area of psychiatric treatment, Opler, who has con—- ducted numerous studies of the effects of subcultural experiences upon personality development, makes the following observation: "Few psychiatrists formally study culture. Fewer still utilize such knowledge in therapy. As for schools of thought, one can mention Myerian psychiatry, for example, in which the various 'psychological' or bio— logical and cultural factors were constantly alluded to, as if for some plan of research, but without firm hy— potheses as to the proper weighting of these multi— form factors, and certainly not the slightest hint that culture is a primary, or antecedent, independent variable among them (55, p. 125). ”. . .However, allusions to specific cultural conditions, human relations, interpersonal communication, and even 7 ego—psychology have not brought psychiatry abreast of anthropological insights in which the concept of specific culture assumes central importance" (55, p. 126). After considering the work of such neo-Freudians and ego- psychologists as Horney, Sullivan, Kardiner, Meyer, Fromm and Hartmann; Opler concludes, "Culture is not an empty abstraction in human affairs. . . For a specific culture contains or includes all the tex'— tures and substances of meaning by which a particular people select, perceive, understand or sort out exper— iences. As such, it guides activity, forms sentiments and 26 motivates strivings in special channels according to sex, age, kinship, class and other relationships it specifically ordains“ (55, p. 126). As early as 1937, Karen Horney became profoundly influenced by the tenets underlying culture and personality theories. At this relatively early date, she began her almost literal translations of neurotic Syndromes from generalized cultural pictures or pictures of modern American society. She observed in the neurotic per- sonality of our times that neuroses develop, not only through in- cidental individual experiences, but are generated also by "specific cultural conditions" under which we live (38). In his New York City studies, Opler used several cultural criteria for the purpose of determining some of the social factors which might have entered into the dynamic personality picture of his schizophrenic subjects (56, p. 127). Some of the important factors which he isolated are intergenerational conflicts, child—rearing prac- tices, the pace of acculturation in different cultural groups, and en- vironmentally imposed racial conflicts. From his findings, he con— eludes, "We found their (schizophrenics) problems of inter— generational conflict and acculturation less related to class, as such, than to ethnic subcultural problems interwoven with class membership and to the whole spectrum of values—conflicts correlative to social and cultural change. — — — — — — These factors become important when a psychiatrist attempts to understand a particular patient, or a group of patients — their value systems, experiences, and symbolic communi— cations, verbal and nonverbal" (56, p. 127). One might argue that Opler does not show adequate concern for the uniqueness of individual personality development. However, Opler'later on in his report makes it quite clear that whatever the generic similarities might be, no two cases are exactly the same. He says, ". . .This very subtlety of each case is what classical nomenclature has pro—eminently missed. ”Such exis— tentialist categories as individual subject—object pattern— ing of experiences are disappointing, however, and one wonders at the label of 'anthropology' being applied to them by Binswanger and others. Existentialism pro— duces its own built—in difficulties, for example, the lack of transitions in going from Case A to Case B" (56, p. 129). It is Opler's Opinion that for these reasons, social psychiatry must redefine the question of whether individual cases do not, as hinted by Freud, fall into deterministically generic patterns, but supplement the pioneering of the Freudian movement in terms of social and cultural variables. Of course, this notion is directly in keeping with the thinking of most of the neo-Freudians. In discussing the agents of personality patterning, Honigmann indicates that culturally imposed interpersonal behavioral patterning affecting the child can have an outstanding effect upon the develop- ment of interpersonal characteristics, tendencies and capacities which become aSpects of the adult personality (37). He discusses family relations as a prototype of interpersonal behavior. Among other things, the implication here embraces the 28 notion that if the family is characterized by distant relationships, then the child is likely to be inclined to develop a characteristic distant attitude toward interpersonal relations in general. Relative to the counseling situation then, such an individual, as an adult personality, would probably find it dffficult to relate to the therapist, who might have been conditioned by his experiences to be quite warm and soc— ially outgoing. Honigmann also talks about peers and cultural surro— gates in this connection. He maintains that these persons also exert significant influences upon the development of interpersonal attitudes on the part of the child. Back in 1938, Breslaw compared historical interpersonal exper— iences of "conservative" subjects with those of "radical" subjects. He found that conservative subjects had generally experienced more con— servative influences than radical subjects. Radical subjects experienced more radical influences than conservative subjects (’7, p. 88). Mitchell (51) discusses a case where the difference between client and counselor with respect to cultural background led the ther— apist to misunderstand many of the dynamics and attitudes of the client. Ultimately, Mitchell hints that due to such misunderstanding, therapy was unsuccessful. Progress in therapy was observed after a period of therapy with another therapist. Since the study of this case discloses information which strikingly supports the main tenets underlying the present study, some of its highlights will be pre— sently discussed . .29 The client was a young, intelligent Negro man who was born and reared in an urban district in the 'State of 'Pennsylvania. With the second therapist, it was discovered that he had negative attitudes toward his weak father who was described as a dark-skinned, self— taught man with little formal education. "The client showed subtle hostility for his domineering mother who, the author hints, was not so dark-skinned. The client enlisted in the military with the ob- jective of entering the Signal Corps for the purpose of studying radio and radar. He had received some training in this area as a civilian. He was quite disappointed when he was assigned to the Field Artillery rather than the signal Corps, and was even more disappointed when it became rather obvious that his race might have been a factor in this situation. ‘After all, he had lived in urban Pennsylvania all of his life and had never really experienced situations before where he was so gravely handicapped because of his race. The latter was probably also related to the fact that, at the time he entered service, he was too young to have encountered significant discriminatory prac- tice with respect to employment or other important aspects of adult responsibility . His first therapist was a "neuro-psychiatric resident who, to both professional colleagues and patients, proudly professed his southern heritage in a marked southerndrawl" (51, p. 10h). Ad— though the resident reported that his contact with the client "had yielded 3'0 ‘ an amicable relationship" ('51, p. 105), the second therapist disagreed with this contention and felt that the resident's attempt to 11sell himself" to the client by concentrating upon the client's racial conflicts, yielded negative results. The cultural background of the second therapist, despite the fact that they were 6f different races, was much more similar to that of the client than was the case with the first therapist. The second therapist had no need to dwell on stereotypes concerning racial conflicts or to attempt to win the client's confidence by displaying superficial concern by showing understanding for the stereotype (not for the individual) because, in reality, he was better equipped by his own experiences to show fl appreciation for the client's plight. ‘Consequently, it was discovered that the client's "'color conflict" was chiefly a defense against anxiety emerging from deeper 1‘role conflict." C610r, as such, to the client was found to be more or less symbolic of the weak, passive and irresponsible role perceptually awarded to his father (the father was quite dark—skinned) . Hostility toward Cau— casians in this case could have been symbolic of the hostility which _was basically intended for his domineering, father figure—oppressing mother. Be this as it may, therapeutic progress was observed subse— quently to the changing of therapists and it does seem that counselor— client understanding was at least a factor. Considering all of the elements of the situation, it further seems that similarity in terms of 31‘ cultural background factors contributed a great deal to such understanding. According to Gist and Halbert, "‘. . .The urban resident is more tolerant than the agriculturist of persons who differ from him in race, nationality, or point of view. . .He is less inclined to make absolutistic distinctions between 'good' and 'bad'. . ." (29, pp. 32+l,3L|.2)° The implications here could possibly throw some light on the situation discussed above, but they definitely allude to some of the difficulties which can arise where the subcultures of the counselor and the client are markedly different. The concepts of tolerance and of rela— tive lack of absolutism mentioned in the above quotation are more or less generally held to be very important characteristics of the coun— seling situation. This concept is not presented to suggest that urban— reared individuals make better counselors than those who were not reared in urban districts, but the implications are far—reaching, and in their generalized form do seem to warrant consideration. In this section, the investigator has attempted to present a sample 0f the concepts and research findings in the field of contemporary SOCial psychology and psychiatry which relate to the concept of cultural i“fluence upon personality development and how these influences might mOI‘e directly enter, negatively or positively, into the counseling Sitnation. The inference has been that differences in background Cultural experiences between two people might lead to a limitation in their ability to deeply understand each other. Relative to the counseling 32 situation, such an inability on the part of the counselor to deeply understand a particular client, or vice—versa, might lead to problems of communication, especially in terms of deep feelings, and ulti- mately retard progress. CHAPTER IV HYPOTI—IESES TO BE TESTED As revealed by the review of the literature in the area of social psychology, previous research findings tend to suggest that differences in background cultural experiences between two people might lead to a limitation in their ability to deeply under- stand each other. With respect to the counseling situation, it has been demonstrated that such an inability on the part of the counse— lor to understand a particular client, or vice versa, might result in problems of communication, especially in terms of deep feelings, and ultimately retard counseling progress. These results of previous research, when viewed relative to theoretical consider— ations underlying this study, tend to suggest certain hypotheses. If increased self—satisfaction is considered a function of involvement in personal adjustment counseling, individuals having undergone personal adjustment counseling should show a signifi- cantly greater increase in self-satisfaction than individuals who have not been exposed to such counseling, that is, when the period between test and retest is held constant for both groups. Consequently, the following hypothesis is advanced: 1. Individuals exposed to personal adjustment counseling will show a greater increase in 33 34 self—satisfaction over the period of counseling than individuals not receiving such counseling, but tested over a similar period of time. Based on the theoretical conception that the concept of the ideal personality is a relatively stable phenonemon, whereas the ideal self— concept is capable of changing as a function of counseling, the following predictions are made: 2. The pretherapy concept of the ideal personality will not difier significantly from the posttherapy concept of the ideal personality. 3. The pretherapy—posttherapy change in the ideal self-concept will be significantly greater than the pretherapy—posttherapy change in the concept of the ideal personality. One of the basic concepts underlying this study is that a person's ability to understand another person is influenced positively by the extent to which the two persons in question have experienced similar cultural conditions. The theory underlying this study also holds that counseling progress is positively influenced by the extent to which the counselor is able to understand his client (and vice versa). Hence, the following hypothesis is advanced: 1+. Counseling progress (as defined) is positively related to counselor—client cultural background similarity. Since it is theoretically held that the counselor who is successful in narrowing the discrepancy between the client's self-concept and ideal self-concept is also successful in directing the client's self—concept toward his (the counselor's) own ideal self, 35 it is implied that in successful counseling the counselor is regarded by the client as an authority figure whose values are superior to his own. Consequently, clients who find it difficult to perceive their counselors as being authority figures and as being superior to themselves are not likely to show counseling progress. Thus, it is hypothesized that: 5. Counseling progress is negatively related to the extent to which the client exceeds his counselor in terms of background social standing. Since it is theoretically held that the ideal self—concept is in— fluenced by the concept of the ideal personality and the latter is influenced by cultural experiences, the extent to which the counselor is similar to his client in terms of cultural background conditions should be positively related to the extent to which the counselor's ideal self is similar to that of his client. Consequently, considering hypothesis #4, one would expect that to the extent which the counselor and client share similar cultural backgrounds, the client's self-concept will move toward the counselor's ideal self-concept. In view of this aspect of theory, the following hypothesis is advanced: 6. The extent of movement of the client's self— concept toward the counselor's ideal self- concept is positively related to counselor— client cultural background similarity. C HAPTE R V PROCED URE 8 Measuring Instruments Several instruments and techniques were used in this study. These instruments and techniques fall into two broad categories; (1) Techniques for assessing counseling progress and, (2) Tech- niques for assessing cultural background similarity. Some of these techniques are standardized methods and some were constructed by the investigator for the specific purpose of this study. In the case of the latter, construction procedures and their purposes will be thoroughly discussed in this section. Those techniques used in this study which have been standardized or used by previous investigators will be described briefly. Techniques for Assessing Counseling Progress. Purpose for Developing a New TechnLque. Feeling that the Q—sort technique does not lend itself adequately to the determination of the direction of change in the self-concept and the ideal self con— cept, the investigator set out to develop a new method. The method is designed to assess both the extent and direction of the movement Of the self—concept, ideal self concept and the concept of the ideal Personality. This method differs from the Q—sort method in that 36 3'? the results can be quantified in terms of "how high" or "how low" L, the ideal self concept is at given points (such as before and after counseling) or "how high” or "how low” the self—concept is rela- tively to the ideal self concept. Such directional quantification was not achieved at the expense of abandoning the tenets underlying self theory by drawing upon normative data. The employment of the concept of the ideal personality provides for directional quanti- fication which is unique for each individual. It should be remembered that one of the theoretical contentions underlying this study is that each individual has a conception of what characteristics the perfect or ideal person would possess and that the nature of this conception is directly, or indirectly, related to his background cultural experiences. It represents his perception of the social stereotype for human perfection. It has been further hypothesized that this concept of the ideal personality is not synonymous to the ideal self—concept. An individual might think, "If there were \ a perfect person he would have more of this characteristic, but this is not what I wish for myself, it is not like the ideal which I hold for myself." It remains the task of the investigator to prove that these two concepts do differ and, considering this fact, it is not necessary to continue discussion relative to this situation at this point. However, if this concept does differ from the ideal self—concept, and Since it is inherent in the concept that it embraces the individual's 38 perception of the ultimate "good" for individuals in his culture, it can serve as a standard for weighing his ideal self concept and his self- concept, not from the standpoint of external norms, but from the stand- point of his own perception. This concept brings direction into the picture for it enables us to speak of "how high" (toward his concept of the ideal personality) or "how low" (away from his concept of the ideal personality) his ideal self concept or his self-concept is at a given point. Unlike the Q—sort method, methods derived by treating this concept in this manner can indicate whether the narrowing of the discrepancy between the self—concept and the ideal self concept is due to "depreciation" of the ideal self concept or to an "elevation" of the self—concept. The Instruments. The instruments consist of three inventories, each consisting of the same 208 characteristics. These characteristics are of varying types, ranging from highly moralistic social stereotypes to highly emotionalized personal attributes. Of the three inventories, one is appropriate for the assessment of the concept of the ideal personality, one for the assessment of the ideal self concept, and the final one is for the assessment of the self—concept. The results ob- tained on a given inventory are meaningless until they are submitted to certain operations involving results obtained by means of the other inventories. Scoring methods will be described and discussed later. 39 On the inventory for assessing the concept of the ideal person— ality (referred to hereafter as "the ideal personality scale“), the 208 characteristics are grouped in fours to form 52 inventory items. The method of these groupings will be described later on. Each of the 52 items begins with the statement: "Regardless of what they are like themselves, most people would probably think that an ideal or perfect person in our society is one who — - —." This statement is repeated for the purpose of keeping the individual oriented with respect to the perspective from which the characteristics are viewed. The four characteristics follow the statement. The subject is asked to rank the characteristics by placing numbers 1 to L1. before the four characteristics indicating the likelihood that the perfect or ideal person would possess the given characteristic in relation to the other three listed. The following instructions from the face of the inventory seem to adequately explain the structure of this inventory: You are asked to express your feelings concerning the traits which you think describe the concept held by most peOple of the ideal or perfect person in our society. Such a person may or may not exist in reality, but try to establish a mental picture of what most people would regard as a perfect or ideal person and rank the traits, in each of the 52 numbered items according to importance. In the parenthesis () before the trait, place the number (1) if you feel that most people would think that this trait is more characteristic of the ideal person in our society then either of the other three. Place the number (2) before the next most characteristic trait, the number (3) before the third most characteristic trait, and the number (Lt) before the trait which you feel most people would 1+0 consider least characteristic (of all four traits) of the perfect or ideal person in our society. YOU MUST RANK ALL TRAITS. EXAMPLE: 0. Regardless of what they are like themselves, most people would probably think that an ideal or perfect person in our society is one who (3) a. is introverted (2) b. is psychologically secure (1) c. is successful in business (2.4.) d. is athletically inclined In the above example, let us suppose that you feel that most people would think that it is more character— istic of the ideal or perfect person to be "successful in business" than it is for him to be “introverted," ”psychologically secureH or ”athletically inclined." Then you would put the no. (1) before the letter (c) which corresponds with this trait (as we have done in the example). Again, let us assume that you think most people would feel that the next most characteris- tic trait of the ideal person is “psychological security,” the third most characteristic trait is "introversion" and it is least characteristic (of all four) of the ideal person to be "athletically inclined." Then you would place the number (2) before the letter (b), the number (3) be— fore the letter (a), and the number (1+) before the letter (d), as we have done above. The structure for the inventory for assessing the ideal self— concept (referred to hereafter as the ”ideal self scale”) does not difler from that of the ideal personality scale. Of course, the instructions and the introductory statement for the 52 items are different. Again, the instructions are here reproduced for the purpose of giving a description of the nature of the inventory. 1+1 You are asked to express your feelings concerning the traits you would really like to possess. Try to establish a mental picture of the person you would really like to be and rank the traits in each of the 52 numbered items according to importance. In the parenthesis () before the trait, place the number (1) if you feel that this trait is more characteristic of the person you would like to be than either of the other three listed under the item. Place the number (2) before the trait which is the next most desirable for yourself, the number (3) before the third most desir- able and the number (1+) before the trait which you feel you would like least (of all four traits) to possess. YOU MUST RANK ALL TRAITS. EXAIVIPLE: O. The person I would really like to be is one who is a free thinker has charm is lively is progressive HFNU) QOO‘W In the above example, let us suppose that you would like to possess all of these traits. However, you might feel that to be "progressive" is more characteristic of the person you would really like to be than the other three traits. In this case you would place the number (1) before the letter (d) which corresponds with this trait (as we have done in the example). Again, let us assume that you feel that the next most desirable trait for yourself is to "have charm," the third most desirable for yourself is to be a "free thinkerH and it is least characteristic (of all four) of‘ the person you' would like to be to be "lively." Then you would place the number (2) before the letter (b), the number '(3) before (a) and the number (1+) before (0), as we have done in the example. The inventory for assessing the self—concept (hereafter referred to as the self—concept scale) takes a different form. There are no item groupings. The 208 characteristics are listed, one after the y 42 other, and each is introduced by such phrases as "I have - — - — - —," "I am —————— ,” or whatever is grammatically appropriate. The subject is asked to rate each item on a five point scale with respect to the extent to which the given statement (embracing the character— istic) describes his concept of himself. The scale, ranging from "unlike me“ to "like me” immediately follows each characteristic and the subject is asked to check the appropriate degree alternative. This inventory consists of ten 8 x 11 inch pages plus the instruction sheet (face sheet). At the top of each page of characteristics, the statement, "WHAT I AM REALLY LIKE)" appears as a constant reminder of the perspective from which the characteristics are being viewed. The instructions for the self—concept scale are as follows: Below are a number of traits or characteristics which a person might have. Everyone might possess most of these traits, but to varying degrees. You are asked to rate yourself on each trait. The scale follow— ing each trait provides for you five degrees from "unlike" yourself to "like" yourself. Place a check mark in the parenthesis () corresponding to the extent or degree to which you feel you possess each trait. Place only one check mark after each trait, but be sure that every trait has been checked somewhere on the scale . The following is an example of the arrangement of the items: 43 What I Am Really Like 1. I have a good reputation ............. (unlike me)( )( )( )( )( )(like me 2 . I am consistent in action ............. (unlike me) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) (like me 3 . I am adaptable ............................... (unlike me) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (like me (4-. I have compassion for others....(unlike me)( )( )( )( )( )(like me 5. I have will power .......................... (unlike me)( )( )( )( )( )(like me A copy of each inventory is included in the appendix. The Construction of the Inventories. The collection of inventory items constitued a major task. Consideration was given to the criti- cisms found in the literature concerning the importance of items rela- tive to self-regard. In most previous studies concerned with the movement of the self-concept, the items used for assessing this con- struct were either taken from self—referent statements uttered by individuals in the counseling situation or they were constructed on the basis of general personality theory. Both of these methods of collecting items seem to be inconsistent with self theory. In the case of the former method, as Wylie has said, "We have, of course, no way of knowing how representative these statements may be of a total imaginary universe of self-concept characteristics" (83, p. 1+4). FilthOugh, to some extent, this can be said about any group of items used for assessing a construct as vast and as individual as the theoretical self—concept, the method of constructing items from materials 41+ emerging from specific therapeutic interviews seems to inherently. ' interfere with representativeness. If we would regard items for assessing the self—concept in terms of a continuum ranging from "maladjusted" to "well adjusted," we would expect individuals who are involved in therapy at any point prior to its termination to be more inclined to utter self—referent statements toward the lower end of the continuum than toward the upper end. Consequently, the range of self-referent statements obtained in this manner might not have sufficient ceiling (statements toward the upper end of the hypothetical continuum) for assessing the self-concept of the "better", adjusted person. One can argue that "well-adjustment" can be in- ferred from a failure on the part of the individual to make ”malad- justed" self-referent statements, but this argument is based upon the assumption that the statements used embrace all of the important aspects of all self-concepts and it is a matter of a given individual perceiving to what extent he possesses each of the characteriStics from the exhaustive repertoire. It is indeed conceivable that the "well-adjusted" individual would add different characteristics to the repertoire if asked to describe his self-concept in his own words. In other words, the self-concept of a given individual is different from that of another, not merely in terms of the extent to which they see themselves as possessing varying degrees of a common characteristic, but also in terms of the types of characteristics 45 relative to which they evaluate themselves. This would mean, then, that the sample of items for assessing the self—concept. should come from individuals representing as many points on the continuum which ranges from "maladjusted" to ''well adjusted" as possible. The pro— cedure which involves selecting items which are thought (on the basis of personality theory) to represent Specific trait or need constructs seems to be very much at variance with self theory. Inherent in these procedures is a tendency to restrict the meaning of the in- dividual's expression of his self-concept because all of his responses are viewed relative to normative types and the uniqueness of his self-perceptions is either inaccessible because the items are not sufiiciently relative to l_1_i_s_ self—concept or methods used will cause the investigator to ignore important aspects of the material he has assessed because these aspects do not lend themselves to appropriate manipulation on the basis of definitions and typology imposed by the particular personality theory. Items. In constructing the inventories, an attempt was made to overcome many of these obstacles. In the first place, the items are not based upon any personality trait or need theory. In the second place, the items were consciously contributed by individuals repre- senting a number of points on the adjustment continuum. The- items were contributed by #95 individuals; 200 nontherapy prison inmates, 200 nontherapy college students, 25 college students in therapy, 20 neurotic prison inmates who were either experiencing therapy or had 46 experienced therapy within recent months, and 50 college graduates. One hundred of the nontherapy students consisted of sophomores and juniors attending Michigan State University and the remaining 100 consisted of sophomores and juniors attending Tennessee State Uni- versity. The 25 therapy students were undergraduates enrolled in three Michigan universities. The 20 neurotic inmates had been so diagnosed by either the staff at the Reception - Diagnostic Center or that at the Psychiatric Clinic at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, and they were either receiving therapy at the time of the study or they had been exposed to therapy within the two months immediately preceding the study. All of the inmates were convicted felons. The 200 nontherapy prison inmates were selected randomly from the incoming population at the Reception - Diagnostic Center at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. They ranged in age from 17 to 52 years. The 50 college graduates were employed and ranged in age from 22 to Lil years. Each of the 24.95 subjects was asked to complete an inventory (hereafter referred to as the initial inventory) containing 26 items. The purpose of the first 25 items was to obtain information concerning the cultural background of the individual (the purpose of this aSpect of the initial inventory will be discussed fully later on). Item 26 was an open-ended item which read as follows: List the ten most important characteristics or traits which you feel a person should have. These may 1+7 be anything; just put down what you really feel are the characteristics of an ideal human being in our society. List these characteristics in order of importance; write what you think is the most important characteristic after number 1, the next most important characteristic after number 2, etc. , until you have listed ten characteristics, with number 10 being the least important. If you have more than 10 characteristics in mind, please add them to the 10, but continue in the order of importance. Numbers 1 through 10 were provided for the subjects with lines following each number upon which the traits or character- istics were to be entered. Although the numbers discontinued with the number 10, adequate space was provided for as many traits or characteristics as the subject cared to list. The 495 subjects listed 210 different characteristics. Two of these characteristics were deleted because they were so stated that interpretation was necessary before they could be placed within the context of the inventories which were to eventually emerge from these items. The wording of some of the charac- teristics was slightly modified to create categories which would accomodate characteristics bearing the same meanings that were stated in slightly different terms. None of these characteristics were changed so drastically as to affect their meanings. To the extent that it was possible, in transferring the items to the inventories, the original wording was unchanged. 48 In addition to obtaining frequencies, each characteristic was weighted on the basis of the order in which it was listed by the individual relative to importance. That is, the charac- teristic placed in the number 1 position received a weight of 10, the characteristic placed in the number 2 position received a weight of 9, the characteristic placed in the number 3 position received the weight of 8, etc. , with the characteristic placed in the number 10 position receiving a weight of 1. Additional characteristics, falling below the number 10 position, also re- ceived weights of 1. This operation yielded a weighted frequency score for a given characteristic when the weighted values obtained in this manner for all individuals on that characteristic was summed. There was no major difference between college graduates and nontherapy undergraduates with respect to the types of characteristics mentioned and their frequencies. Likewise, the prison inmate therapy group and the undergraduate therapy group did not differ appreciably in terms of types of character— istics listed and frequency of characteristics. Nontherapy prison inmates listed more or less the same characteristics as the nontherapy college students, but these two groups differed noticeably in terms of frequency and weighted frequency on many of the characteristics. The social stereotype with respect to the ideal personality is perceived 1+9 differently by these two groups, suggesting that projection has systematically entered into the picture. Although the plight of the prison inmate has resulted, in most cases from behavior contrary to social and moral codes, he tends to adhere to the social stereotype in his concept of the ideal personality more closely than does the college student whose behavior has been more conforming. One would expect the antisocially adjusted individual, being conditioned by eXperiences to be more or less emotionally detached from the social stereotypes, to be able to see the stereotyped personality more impersonally and, conse- quently, more clearly. Since individuals of this type are charac- terized by minimum striving toward the socially stereotyped personality, they are less likely to be frustrated as a result of conflictual strivings than individuals who are less antisocially adjusted and who, therefore, are more inclined to aspire toward the stereotyped "good" personality. Consequently, the anti- socially adjusted individual is less likely to counter-project, that is, to adOpt the "sour grapes” attitude, denying his aspirations toward the social stereotype of the "good" individual. Denial in this connection refers to an anxiety—elicited diminution in conscious awareness of the effect which the stereotype of the "$0001" personality has upon one's phenomenal self and is probably used by all individuals to a greater or lesser degree. 50 Just as the so-called ”normally” adjusted individual is less emotionally detached from the social stereotype with respect to the "good" personality than the antisocially adjusted individual, we would expect the neurotic individual or the individual with manifest emotional problems to be less emotionally detached from this stereotype than "normally" adjusted persons. Because he is even more threatened in his strivings toward this socially stereotyped concept and less capable of living and experiencing as an autonomous individual, counter-projection or the denial tendency in this respect should be more pronounced. Inspection of the results obtained on the Therapy Group shows that this conception has at least some merit. The constituents of the Therapy Group were more inclined to list characteristics which are not directly dictated by social stereotypes but which tend to accentuate individual autonomy. These results suggest that it is a real possibility that "reaction formation" as a defense maneuver is at work in the case of the Therapy Group. The characteristics mentioned by the #95 subjects, their fre(ll-lencies, and their weighted frequencies are listed in the appendices (see Appendix VI). A combination of frequency and Weighted frequency scores was used to determine the ranks of the 208 characteristics with respect to importance. 51 Each of the 52 items on the ideal self scale and the ideal per— sonality scale consists of two high-ranking characteristics and two low-ranking characteristics. This procedure was deemed necessary to minimize the tendency toward an arbitrary ranking of the four characteristics falling under a given item on the final scales. Such an arrangement also tends to accentuate the numerical value of the discrepancy scores. Scoring System. As mentioned earlier, each character- istic on the self-concept scale is followed by a rating scale graduated in five degrees ranging from "unlike me" to "like me." The scoring system requires that these ratings be weighted by numbers, reversed in order of magnitude, ranging from 0 to 2+. Such uniformed intervals between weights were adopted inasmuch as careful inspection of the data obtained on the normative group failed to show systematic tendencies for checking certain points on the five-point scale. InSpection shows that there is no general tendency for check— ing the middle point or for checking either of the extremes. The weighted ratings obtained on the self—concept scale for a given characteristic is multiplied by the weighted rank for that characteristic on the ideal self scale and again by the weighted rank for that characteristic on the ideal personality 52 scale in order to obtain the discrepancy between the self and the ideal self and between the self and the ideal personality, respectively, for a given individual with respect to that parti— cular characteristic. In the case of the ideal self and the ideal personality scale, the ranks assigned to any given four characteristics falling under a particular item are weighted uniformly, in reverse order, with. numbers 1 through Lt. It is these weighted ranks which are multiplied by the appro- priate weighted ratings on the self-concept scale to yield self— ideal and self—ideal personality discrepancies. For the purpose of further eludication with respect to scoring procedures, the following examples from the score sheet are given: Example 1 . 53 Example 2 . l. Example 1 presents that section of the score sheet that relates to item number 1 on either the ideal self scale or the ideal personal- ity scale. In this example, scoring has not been accomplished. In Example 2, scoring has been accomplished for a hypothe— tical individual on the first three items (relative to the ideal self and concept of the ideal personality scales), or for the first 12 charac—' teristics (relative to the self concept scale). Inthe column under R the ranks suggested by the hypothetical individual have been listed for each characteristic. As indicated by the example, each characteristic is ranked relatively to the remaining three listed under a given item. In the column under W the weights which are assigned to these 51+ ranks are listed. The numbers, 1 to 5, above the double lines correspond with the five degrees on the self concept scale which range from "unlike me" to "like me.” The numbers if to O, which follow each characteristic and which have been placed in parenthesis represent the weights assigned to these varying degrees. The entries in the WR(s—c) column are the products obtained by multi— plying the weighted self concept rating (the parenthetical number which has been checked) by the appropriate weighted rank (for the purpose of this example) obtained from the ideal self scale. The sum of these entries for a given item is placed in theEWR(s—c) column. The summation of these sums for the 52 items yields the self—ideal discrepancy for a given individual. The entry in the zs—c column for a given item is the sum of all checked parenthetical numbers under a given item and represents the self-concept score for a given indivi— dual with respect to that item. The summation of such scores for the 52 items yields the self-concept score for the individual. The following notational system is used in the scoring and the evaluation of the inventories. 5—0 = the weighted rating (0 to 2+) for a given characteristic on the self-concept scale for a given individual. S—C = the sum of such weighted ratings for the 208 characteristics for a given individual. R—is = rank, by item, of a given characteristic on the ideal self scale for a given individual. 55 R—ip = the rank, by item, of a given charac— teristic on the ideal personality scale for a given individual. WR—is = the weighted rank, by item, of a given characteristic on the ideal self scale for a given individual. WR—ip = the weighted rank, by item, of a given characteristic on the ideal personality scale for a given individual. WR—is(s—c) = the product resulting from the multiplication of the weighted rating for a given characteristic on the self—concept scale for a given individual by the weighted rank of that characteristic on the ideal self scale. This product constitutes an index of self-ideal dis— crepancy for a given individual with respect to a given characteristic. WR—ip(s—c) = the product resulting from multi— plication of the weighted rating for a given char— acteristic on the self—concept scale for a given in— dividual by the weighted rank of that characteristic on the ideal personality scale. This product constitutes an index of the discrepancy between self—concept and the concept of the ideal personality for a given individual with respect to a given characteristic. D(sc—is) = the sum of the products obtained by multiplying the ratings for the 208 individual char— acteristics on the self concept scale by the weighted ranks of these characteristics on the ideal self scale. The D(sc-is) score is an index of self— ideal discrepancy for a given individual. D(sc—ip) = the sum of the products obtained by multiplying the ratings for the 208 individual characteristics on the self—concept scale by the weighted ranks of these characteristics on the ideal personality scale. The D(sc-ip) is an index of the' discrepancy between the self—concept and the concept of the ideal personality for a given individual. S—C/D(sc—is) = d (tendency toward the establish— ment of a reaction formation as an ego defense). 56 S—C/D(sc-ip) = r (a tendency to more directly reject the social stereotype). [D(sc—ipfl — {D(sc—isfl = D(is—ip) (the dis— crepancy between the ideal self concept and the concept of the ideal personality. Validating Procedures. Inasmuch as the inventories were developed for the purpose of indicating the movement of the self— concept and related constructs as a function of counseling or psy— chotherapy as well as assessing the relative position of the self— concept at a given point in the temporal sequence, a final statement with respect to validity must await the analysis of the results obtained on the experimental and control groups. However, an analysis of the results obtained on diverse diagnostic groups (supposedly repre— senting different points on the "maladjusted" — “well adjusted" con- tinuum) does tend to throw some light on the question of the validity of the instruments with respect to the extent to whichthey discriminate between such groups. The extent to which the instruments discrim— inate between these groups is an indication of validity in terms of the assessment of meaningful aspects of the self—concept at a given point in the temporal sequence. There were five of such groups: (1) sociopathic prison inmates, (2) ”normal" individuals, (3) stu— dents in counseling, (4) students with academic prbblems, and (5) neurotic prison inmates. The sociopathic prison inmates were individuals who had been so diagnosed by either the professional staff at the Reception — Diagnostic 57 Center or that at the Psychiatric Clinic of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. In addition to this criterion, all of these individuals have been convicted of at least two felonies and scored above the point of signifi- cance on the psychopathic and hypomanic scales of the M.M.P.I. Individuals constituting the neurotic group were those who had been diagnosed by either the professional staff at the Reception — Diagnostic Center or that of the Psychiatric Clinic at the State Prison of Southern Michigan as being neurotically adjusted. In addition to this criterion, all of these individuals scored above the point of signi— ficance on the neurotic triad of the M.M.P.I. and each individual in this group was characteristically inclined to diSplay at least one neurotic symptom. The so—called "normal" group was composed of individuals who were not inclined to show gross tendencies toward overt maladjustment. This group consisted of undergraduate college students. The students in counseling were all undergraduates who were seeking solutions to personal problems. All of these students were involved in personal adjustment—type counseling at the time of the study. The students with academic problems were also undergraduates and were actively seeking to improve their study habits at the time of the study. All of these students were involved in group counseling aimed at improving study habits. The results obtained on these groups are presented in Table I . 58 Table I. Mean Scale Values and Standard Deviations for Five Diagnostic Groups S—C l D(sc—is) D(sc—ip) Score Score Score d r GROUPS L' M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Sociopaths (N=20) 292 51 717 108 '708 102 41 3.70 #2 3.3 "Normals" (Nail) 176 78 399 99 402 96 41+ 3.93 1+4 2.69 Students in Counseling (N=23) 314 31 769 67 758 71 (+1 2.1+8 14.2 2.29 Students With Aca— detnic Problems (N=29) 275 Ila 659 105 660 108 42 2.30 42 2.90 i Neurotics LN=20) 209 61. 1.79 110 467 108 1+7 6.63 47' 7.97 S—C = Self—Concept score (The higher the S—C score the lower the self-concept relative to the characteristics). D(sc—is) D(sc—ip) Self—ideal discrepancy score. Discrepancy score between the self—concept and the concept of the ideal personality. d l" M SD ego—defensive reaction formation score. more direct tendency to reject the social stereotype. Mean of the distribution. Standard deviation of the distribution. 59 The results presented in Table I show clearly that the self— ideal and selLideal personality discrepancy scores for the "normal" group are decidedly lower than those of the other groups. These results also tend to support the prediction that neurotically adjusted individuals are more defensive in their perceptions, concerning both their ideal self-concepts and their concepts of the ideal personality, than individuals who do not manifest neurotic adjustment tendencies. Although this group obtained lower discrepancy scores (between self and ideal self and between self and concept of the ideal per- sonality) than the 'Sociopathic, Students in Counseling, and Students With Academic Problems groups, but that these relatively low scores Were obtained at the expense of defensiveness is a fact attested to by the relatively high mean "d" score for this group. The standard deviation of 6.63 for the "d" score and the relatively high standard deviations for the discrepancy scores for this group tend to disclose the relatively high variability among its constituent members. The 1'l’ilean "d" for the neurotic group is approximately two standard de— Viaftions higher than that for the sociopathic group. It is approxi— l'l'lately one standard deviation higher than that for the normal group and approximately two standard deviations higher than that of the group composed of students in counseling. As indicated by the re— slflts entered in Table I, the same trend is found with respect to "1". n 60 It is clearly suggested by these results that the sociopathic group and the students in counseling are less defensive than the normal and the neurotic groups, that is, they are more inclined to admit the ex- tent to which their self—concepts are at variance with their ideal self— concept and their concept of the ideal personality. It is assumed that sociopathically oriented individuals are less defensive in this connection because of their lack of deep emotional concern for the type of individuals others would have them to be, and it is assumed that the very fact that the students in counseling are seeking assistance in their endeavor to become better personally adjusted means that their defenses have been broken down to a greater extent than those Of the other groups. It is generally accepted that the illness of the Ileurotically adjusted individual lies with his exaggerated employment 0f maladaptive defenses. In the case of the neurotic individual, then, the discrepancy scores do not give an accurate picture of the extent to which-his self—concept is truly at variance with his ideal self Concept“ The "d" score, then, should be considered a validity in— dicator in that it is an indication of the probability that the discrepancy Sc ores obtained tend to express phenomenal self-dissatisfaction. It is an expression of the extent to which the discrepancy scores are actually results of conscious awareness of the self structure. A high "d" score, then, would tend to suggest that considerations giving rise to the discrepancy scores lie within the unconscious and are probably 61 distorted by defense reactions of which the individual is not completely aware . Considering the above discussion relative to "cl" as a validity indicator, all of the groups except the neurotic group apparently yielded valid results. Bearing this in mind, we can proceed to compare the discrepancy scores for the various groups. The high- est self—ideal discrepancy score is found in the group composed of students in counseling. This score is significantly higher than the corresponding score for the normal group. Although the self ideal discrepancy score for the sociopathic group is higher than that of the normal group, considering the basic characteristic of this group which was discussed above relative to emotional detachment from the Social stereotype, we are not justified in assuming that a higher dis— crepancy score in this connection means that the constituents of the sociopathic group are more dissatisfied with themselves than the constituents of the normal group. The group consisting of students with academic problems also. effected mean self—ideal and self—ideal personality discrepancy scores Which are significantly higher than those effected by the "normal" group. These findings suggest that the constituents of this group are more dissatisfied with their phenomenal selves than the con— Stituents of the "normal” group, with the implication being that their academic problems might be an expression or reflection of such phenomenal self—dissatisfaction. The discrepancy score between 62 the self-concept and the concept of the ideal personality follows the same pattern, in terms of group differences, as the self- ideal discrepancy score. Test-Retest Reliability. Test-Retest reliability was ob- tained for the three scales on 100 undergraduate and graduate college students. There was a 30 to no days' period between test and retest. The reliability coefficient (Pearson r) for the self-ideal discrepancy score was found to be .68. The relia- bility coefficient for the discrepancy score between the self- concept and the concept of the ideal personality was found to be .71 . The r for the discrepancy score between the ideal self- concept and the concept of the ideal personality was found to be .59. The coefiicient of correlation for the self—concept Sc ore was found to be .57. The application of the t—test revealed that all four of these coefiicients of correlation are significant at the .01 level of confidence. Although statistically significant, these coefficients of correlation are not especially large. How- ever, since it is hypothesized that the phenomenal self structure is relatively fluid and may alternate in nature and direction, eVen in the absence of conscious manipulations (such as in the Case of therapy), one would not expect extremely high coefficients 0f correlation for aspects of the self structure over a 30 or #0 daYS' period of time. In fact, this relatively short test-retest 63 period was adopted because of such an expectation. No attempt was made to establish test—retest reliability for the ideal self- concept and the concept of the ideal personality as such for two reasons: (1) These concepts can only be quantified relative to the self-concept and (2) it is the discrepancies between these concepts and the self—concept that are con— sidered important scores in-the course of this study and, as separate entities, they really have no significance. In conclusion, then, it seems that, granting some degree of change which is inherent in the concept of the phenomenal self structure, the scales consistently measure some systematic aspects of the phenomenal self. Item Analysis. Internal consistency was determined by correlating the self-ideal discrepancy scores and the self- ideal personality scores for each of the 52 items with those of every other item and with the respective total scores. This Operation was performed on the result obtained on the 100 under- graduate and graduate students used in the test-retest reliability study. The inter-item coefficients of correlation for the discrepancy score between the self-concept and the concept of the ideal per- sonality ranged from .01.; to .66 with all but 25 of the 2,652 coefficients of correlation being significant at the .01 level of 61+ confidence. With respect to this score, there was no item which failed to correlate significantly with at least 95% of the other items. The item score—total score coefficients of correlation for the dis— crepancy between the self-concept and the concept of the ideal personality ranged from .414. to .78 with all coefficients being significant at the .01 level of confidence. The inter—item coefficients of correlation for the self—ideal discrepancy score ranged from .12 to .72 with only 31 of the 2,652 coefficients failing to reach the .01 level of significance upon application of the t—test. With respect to this score, there was no item which failed to correlate significantly with at least 95% of the other items. The item score-total score coefficients of correlation for the self-ideal discrepancy score ranged from .38 to .77 with only two of the coefficients failing to reach significance at the .01 level of confidence. Due to the unusually high inter—item and item-total score coefficients of correlation described above, it was deemed unnecessary to delete any of the items. The internal consistency of the scales with respect to important scores is quite high. It can be concluded that all of the items on the scales tend to measure whatever the total score measures and whatever is measured, is measured relatively consistently with respect to a given individual over at least a 30 to 1+0 days' period of time. 65 The Case Rating Scale. Since one of the sub-problems with which this study is concerned is that of ascertaining the degree to which counseling progress as assessed by the measurement of the movement within the phenomenal self structure is related to overt indications of progress as a result of therapy, it was necessary to employ some system whereby counselor judgment as to the amount of progress made could be quantified. A single global rating of a case was found to be insufficient as a criterion measure because such a rating would not provide the degrees or linear graduations necessary for comparison with the linear discrepancy scores. In reviewing the literature, it was found that a scale adequate for our purpose has been used in previous studies. The scale to which the writer refers is the "Case Rating Scale" develoPed by Julius Seeman and Nathaniel J. Raskin (69). Concerning this scale, one of the authors writes: "Since we are concerned with refinement of coun- selor judgment, the approach in this study has been to construct a rating scale which assessed in more or less specific terms the coun- selor's judgments about the events of therapy" (69, p. 100). This technique, composed of items which are based upon "implicit hypotheses about the variables pertinent to therapeutic change" (69, p. 100), provides for pretherapy and posttherapy ratings for items on a nine—point scale. The items concern the process, the relationship, and the outcome of therapy. The difference 66 between the pretherapy and posttherapy ratings constitutes a "movement" score for the variables. In a study involving 23 clients, Seeman found that all ranges of success, as indicated by counselor ratings, were present in the group and that as a group, significant movement in therapy was rated on all items but one. He found that clients who did not remain in therapy were judged to be more optimally integrated at the beginning of therapy than was the experimental group. This suggests that perhaps the judgments relative to the variables embraced by the scale have at least some validity in terms of an indi- cation of client movement toward integration. This scale is included in the appendices. Techniques For Assessing Counselor-Client Cultural Background Similarity The Questionnaire. Contemporary research in the area of social psychology relative to the effects of differential aspects of cultural background upon personality development was carefully I‘eVi'F—‘wed. Significant cultural background differentials suggested by research findings were entered on the initial inventory previously mentioned, that which was given to the 14.95 individuals who listed the 208 characteristics constituting the self scales. The items on the questionnaire referred to cultural and social conditions 6'? existing during the period from birth to the age of 17 for a given individual. This period, ranging from birth through adolescence, was assumed to include, from the standpoint of the development of the basic personality, most of the indivi— dual's formative experiences. The initial questionnaire included items concerning father's occupation, mother's employment, source of income, relative amount of income, house value and size (relative and absolute), family stability, geographical location of place of residence, com— munity population, educational level of parents, home ownership, number and sex of siblings, order of birth, broken homes sit- uation, age of parents, method of discipline used in the home, religious interest of parents, amount of parental emphasis on religion, amount of parental emphasis placed on education, par— ental expressive attitudes concerning curfew, degree of parti- Cipation in family decisions, parental concern about types of associates selected, racial composition of the community, extent 0f involvement with different racial groups, use of leisure, Parental involvement in civic affairs, and race of subject. From an inspection of the data obtained on the initial group 0‘5 14-95 subjects, it was noted that the cultural background factors listed on the initial inventory had differential effects upon the types 68 of characteristics listed by these individuals. However, all of these factors were listed on the final questionnaire used in this study for the assessment of cultural background information. The final questionnaire consists of all of the categories listed above, but these categories were refined in a manner as to accentuate individual differences with respect to cultural background exper- iences. The cultural background factors which seemed to yield the greatest difierential effects, in terms of the types of charac- teristics ascribed to the stereotype of the ideal personality, are included in the group of factors isolated by Warner to yield the Index of Status Characteristics (80). Thus, it seems that, globally speaking, the most important factors in this connection are basically social class factors. Considering these findings, the decision was made to use Warner's Index of Status Charac- teristics as the chief method for quantifying counselor-client cul— tural background similarity. The final questionnaire for assessing cultural background information is found in the appendices. Index of Status Characteristics. In his Yankee City study, Warner analyzed evaluated participation of individuals in the social class hierarchy. He had individuals in the community to assign social classes to other constituent individuals. The underlying assumption was that meaningful social class differentials in America 69 lie with the perception of constituent individuals with respect to who falls into what class. In other words, social class differentials exist in America to the extent that they are perceived by the in— dividuals who constitute various difierential groups with respect to wealth, style of life, and other socioeconomic aspects which influence class distinction. Warner examined the Yankee City material to discover what social characteristics correlated most highly with class as determined by evaluated participation. After determining what these characteristics were, he separated parti— cipation from social class characteristics and developed a seven— point scale for the isolated characteristics. The final technique supposedly yields an index of status characteristics. Warner correlated the various characteristics to determine their relative importance with respect to the class criterion. The characteristics were weighted accordingly. Warner states: "The Index of Status Characteristics as a measure— ment of social class is posed on two propositions: That economic and other prestige factors are highly important and closely correlated with social class; and that these social and economic factors, such as talent, income, and money, if their potentialities for rank are to be realized, must be translated into Social—class behavior acceptable to the members of any given. social level of the community" (80, p. 39) . The four status characteristics isolated by Warner were: occupation, Source of Income, House Type, and Dwelling Area. The Scales for making primary ratings of these characteristics are presented in Table II. 70 Table II, Scales for Making Primary Ratings of Four Status ‘ Characteristics Status Status Characteristic Characteristic _and Rating Definition and Rating Definition O c CLIpation: l. 3" so mfw Original Scale Professionals and Pro— prietors of large busi— nesses Semiprofessionals and smaller officials of large businesses Clerks and kindred workers Skilled workers PrOprietors of small busi— nesses Semiskilled workers Unskilled workers Source of Income: \IO‘WJ‘li-‘LDNl—fi House Inherited wealth Earned wealth Profits and fees Salary Wages Private relief Public relief and non— respectable income Type: Original Scale Large houses in good condition Large houses in medium condition; medium-sized houses in good condition Large houses in bad condition Medium—sized houses in medium condition; apart- ments in regular apart— ment buildings House Type: 5. House QOUI-P'UJNF“ (confinued) Small houses in good condition; small houses in medium condition; dwellings over stores Medium-sized houses in bad condition; small houses in bad condition All houses in very bad condition; dwellings in structures not intended originally for _homes Type: Revised Scale Excellent houses Very good houses Good houses Average houses Fair houses Poor houses Very poor houses Dwelling Area: 1. 2. Very high; Gold Coast, North Shore, etc. High; the better suburbs and apartment, house areas, houses with spacious yards, etc. Above average; areas all residential, larger than average space around houses; apartment areas in good condition, etc. Average; residential neighborhoods, no deter- ioration in the area ’71 Table II, (continued) * Status Status Characteristics . Characteristics and Rating Definition and Rating Definition Dwelling Area: (continued) 5. Below average; areas not 6. Low; considerably deter— quite holdingtheir own, iorated, run down and beginning to deteriorate, semislum business entering, etc. 7. Very low; slum From: Warner's "Social Class in America," 1960 To obtain the Index of Status Characteristics, the ratings are multiplied by the following weights: Occupation Source of Income House Type Dwelling Area mum»:- The Index yields perceived social class status inasmuch as the Characteristics and their weights were obtained by means of evalu— ated participation. Consequently, it has relevence to how a person sees himself in his social milieu and ultimately to the develOpment of the Self—concept and social attitudes. As Warner PUtS it: "The most important fact to remember about using I.S.C. as a measurement of social class is that, in order for it to be a reliable instrument and an accurate index of social Class, each of the four characteristics and the points in their scales must reflect how Americans feel and think about the relative worth of each job, source of income which Supports them and the evaluation of their houses in the neighborhoods in which they live. For it is not the house, 91‘ the job, or the income, or the neighborhood that is 72 being measured so much as the evaluations that are in the backs of all of our heads — evaluations placed there by our cultural tradition and our society. From one point of view, the four characteristics - house, occupation, income, and neighborhood - are no more than evaluated symbols which are signs of status telling us the class levels of those who possess the symbols. By measuring the symbols, we meaSure the relative worth of each; and by adding up their several 'worths,' reflecting diverse and complex economic and social values, we get a score which tells us what we think and feel about the worth of a man's social participation, meaning essentially that we are measuring his Evaluated Participation or social class” (80, p. 40). Thus, it becomes clear that the tenets underlying the meaning of the Index of Status Characteristics are not at variance with those inherent in the major concepts which serve as the basis for the present study (that is, the concept relative to factors which enter into the deveIOpment of the self-structure and the concept of the influence of cultural and social factors upon the development of interpersonal attitudes and understanding). Qultural Backggound Factors Not Included in the Index of Status Characteristics. In this study, counselor-client similarity with respect to cultural background factors other than those included in the Index of Status Characteristics are also correlated with counseling progress. These cultural background factors are corre- lated as a group, separate from the Index of Status Characteristics, and are then combined with the I.S.C. to yield a total counselor— Client cultural background similarity score and this score is also Correlated with counseling progress, Since most of these factors ’73 do not yield a range of scores which can be valued in terms of "high" or "low," "desirable" or "undesirable,” etc., (as in the case of the I.S.C.), they are scored for counselor-client simi- larity relative to counselor-client agreement with respect to each factor . These agreements are weighted according to the relative importance of the cultural background factors in terms of their influence on the concept of the ideal personality as indicated by the results obtained by means of the initial questionnaire. The weights for agreement on the factors were obtained in the following manner : l. The weighted frequency on each of the 208 characteristics was computed relative to each of the cultural background factors. The variance was computed for the distribution of characteristic weighted frequency score for each of the cultural background conditions. It Was considered that the greater the variance obtained in this manner, the greater the differ- ential influence the particular cultural background factor had upon the types of characteristics which the #95 subjects ascribed to the ideal personality. Consequently, three equal intervals were set up relative to the magnitudes of the numerical value of these variances. Cultural background factors whose variances fell within the lower interval received a weight of 1, those whose variances fell within the middle interval received a weight of 2 and those whose variances fell within the higher interval received a weight of 3. The cultural background factors (other than those included in the I.S.C.) and their weights for counselor-client agreement are listed in the appendices (see Appendix VII). 71+ Although Warner did not include education in his final I.S.C. , he did isolate this factor and set up a rating scale for it. Inas- much as he did not give the weight for this factor, it cannot be included in the context of the I.S.C. as used in this study. It is not included in the group of counselor-client agreement factors listed above. However, analysis of the data obtained by means of the initial questionnaire does indicate that the education factor tends to significantly influence the types of characteristics ascribed to the stereotype of the ideal personality. Consequently, this factor was also correlated with counseling progress, both in combination with the I.S.C. score and in combination with the counselor—client agreement factors plus the I.S.C. score. This factor was more or less arbitrarily assigned the weight of 2 in the context of the I.S.C. This weight seems to be in keeping with the importance assigned to this factor by Warner. The ratings suggested by Warner for education are as follows: 0 Professional or graduate school College education (1-1+ years) High school graduate One to three years of high school Grammar school graduate (8th grade) Four to seven years of school Zero to three years of school fiO‘m-F‘WNH '75 Operational Definition of Terms and Delimitations _Qperational Definition of Terms 1. Counselor-client cultural background similarity has a three—fold definition: (1) the reciprocal of the discrepancy between counselors' and clients' scores on the Index of Status Characteristics measurement; (2) the sum of the weighted agreement scores for the 35 additional cultural background factors; and (3) the combination of l and 2. 2. Counseling progress is defined as a reduction of the self—ideal discrepancy score over the period of counseling. 3. The counseling period is the interim commencing at the onset of counseling and ending with its termination. 4. Judged progress refers to the sum of the counselor's ratings on the variables embraced by the Case Rating Scale. 5. The self-concept score is the sum of the weighted ratings on the self-concept scale (the higher the numerical Value, the lower the self-concept). 6. The self-ideal discrepancy score is the sum of the Products obtained by multiplying the weighted ratings on the self—concept scale by the corresponding weighted ranks on the ideal self scale. 76 7. The self—ideal personality score is the sum of the products obtained by multiplying the weighted ratings on the self-concept scale by the corresponding weighted ranks on the ideal personality scale. 8. The ideal self-ideal personality score is the difference between the self-ideal idscrepancy score and the self—ideal per- sonality discrepancy score. Delimitations . The central aspects of this study are limited to college students voluntarily involved in personal adjustment—type coun- seling at the counseling centers of four Michigan colleges. The counselors involved are more or less oriented toward self—theory and client-centered counseling techniques. Cultural background factors studied relative to the counseling progress variables are limited to those listed in the previous section. In this study, the degree of self—regard is the aspect of the self-structure considered; the nature of the organization Of the self—structure does not fall within the scope of this investi gation . Social adjustment, although theoretically considered to be a reflection of personal adjustment, is not used as a criterion 77 for judging counseling progress and is not really treated as a variable in this investigation. Subjects and Method of Collecting Data Subjects . The subjects consisted of four groups; the experimental counselor group, the experimental therapy group, the non- therapy control group, and the control group consisting of students in group counseling for improvement of study habits. Exp_erimenta1 Group, Counselors. Four of the seven counselors were individuals with Ph. D. degrees and three were Ph. D. candidates. All except one of the counselors had completed at least three years of experience in active personal adjustment-type counseling. All of the counselors were more or less oriented toward self theory and client-cen- tered counseling concepts and techniques. All except one of the counselors were of the male sex. Six of the counselors were American—born Caucasians, the remaining one was also American born but was of the Negro race. Experimental Groppj Clients. The experimental client group consisted of 20 individuals, 12 females and 8 males. Eighteen of the clients were undergraduate students and two were graduate students enrolled at four Michigan colleges. Their ages ranged '78 from 19 to 36, with only three of the individuals exceeding the age of 25. The number of hours spent in counseling ranged from 6 to 32. Table III presents the sex, age, academic level, and number of hours spent in counseling for each of the 20 individuals who constituted the experi- mental group. The Control Group, Nontherapy. The nontherapy control group consisted of 37 undergraduate college students attending Michigan State University. These students were sophomores and juniors and were enrolled in school during the period that the therapy group was receiving counseling. These students ranged in age from 18 to 21+ years. None of these students had been exposed to personal adjustment counseling. Five of them stated that they had received academic-type counseling from their advisors but most of such counseling was done during the course of one interview. Control Group, Students in Group Counselirg for Improvement of Study Habits. This group consisted of 29 under- graduate. students attending Michigan State University. During the course of this study, they were involved in academic-type counseling with a trained therapist in a group situation. Actually, this particular control group was composed of two group counseling classes. One class consisted of 16 members and the other 13 members. The classes lasted for one school term, approximately a three-months' .79 Table III. Sex, Age, Academic Level, and Number of Interview Hours for the Constituents of the Experimental Client Group Number of Client Academic Counseling Number Sex Age Level Interviews 1. Male 27 M_A(PhD Candidate) _32 2. Male 25 MA( PhD Candidate) 28 3. Male 20 Junior in College 21 1+. Male 25 Senior in College 6 5. Female 22 Senior in College 16 6. Female 20 Junior in College 16 7. Female 21 Junior in College 17 8. Female 24 Senior in College 6 9. Female 19 Junior in College 10 10. Female 21 Senior in College 8 11. Female 22 Junior in College 7 12. Female 21 Junior in College 7 13. Male 22 Senior in College 10 11+. Female 22 Senior in College 15 15. Female 22 SOphomore in College 32 -16. Male 36 2nd yr. Special Student 22+ 17. Male 30 2nd yr. Special Student 16 18.» Female 20 Senior in College 15 19° Male 21 Senior in College 14 20° Female 22 Senior in College 6 80 period. The inventories and the Study of Values1 were administered at the beginning and at the end of the group counseling period. Method of Collecting Data The assistance of counselors at four Michigan colleges and universities was solicited. Counselors who agreed to participate in the study were asked to provide as many clients as possible within a given period. The criterion for selecting clients for the study included the following: 1. The client must be enrolled in college. 2. The client is voluntarily seeking counseling. 3. Counseling promises to be of the personal adjustment type. Lt, The nature of the problem indicates that the period of counseling will include at least four interviews. 5. The client must avail himself to the study without reservations . Several of the counselors who agreed to participate in the study were unable to provide subjects because none of their clients, during the period designated as the pretherapy period, met all five requirements of the criterion for selection. The pretherapy period, set to include 30 days, was that period during which the pretherapy material was given all counselors and clients involved in the study. 1. This instrument was not involved in the major part of this study, but it was administered to the members of the three groups. The reason for its inclusion and the results obtained by means of this instrument constitute Appendix VIII. 81 The pretherapy material for clients included the three self scales (the inventories), the Study of Values, general instructions, and a stamped, self—addressed envelope for mailing the completed material directly to the investigator. The pretherapy material for counselors included the three self scales, a record form for entering information (concerning the onset, number of interviews, and duration of therapy), a stamped, self—addressed envelope for mailing the completed material directly to the investigator, and a set of general instructions. The general instructions to the counselors which follow serve adequately to explain this aspect of the procedure. To The Counselor: 1. Clients who, after the initial interview, you feel will require at least four (4) counseling sessions should be asked if they would like to participate in the study. You may tell them that the study deals with some of their concepts and feelings which might be affected by counseling. The clients should be advised that their participation consists of filling out forms and inventories at their place of residence. ' 2. Clients who agree to participate should be given an envelope to take home and told that they will be given another at the termination of counseling. They should be informed that a stamped, self- addressed envelope is enclosed and that they are to mail the material after they have completed it, The client should be informed that full instructions are to be found in his envelope. 3. We would like for you to enter the client's name, the number on the envelope given him, and the date of the initial interview on the record form which has been provided for this purpose. 82 1+. You are to keep the record form so that at the termination of counseling, you can give the client a second envelope bearing the same number. 5. In addition to this, we would like for you to complete the three inventories (excluding the Allport-Vernon Study of Values) immediately and again at the termination of counseling with the last of your clients used in the study. 6. You will also be asked to fill out short empathy and felt similarity scales for each client. We will provide you with these as soon as possible. 7. You may use the stamped, self-addressed envelope to mail your material to us also. During the pretherapy period, the investigator visited each counselor and left with each the number of envelopes (containing the material mentioned above) appropriate for the number of clients which the counselor felt he could make available for the study. During this visit, the counselor was given his personal enve10pe and such additional verbal instructions as were deemed necessary. Other than completing the material included in his personal enve10pe, the counselor's only task was to inquire of the client his desire to participate and, if his answer was in the affirmative, give him the enve10pe. All envelopes and enclosed material were numbered so that pretherapy and posttherapy material could be compared for individuals who might not choose to give their names. The following were the instructions placed in the client's initial envelope: We sincerely appreciate your participation in this study. A number of persons working in the area of assisting other peeple with personal problems have read the pro- posal for this study and, unanimously, they feel that such research is very much needed. 83 Many hours have been put into the designing of this study but the validity of our results depends ultimately upon you and others who have agreed to take part. Keeping this in mind, we solicit your sincerity and honesty while filling out the enclosed material. It is important that you follow these steps (in the order listed). 1. Take the inventory marked No. 1 from the enve10pe (put all other materials aside and do not open them for any reason un— til you have completed Inventory No. 1). 2. Read the instructions on the cover of Inventory No. 1. 3. Turn the page and begin. 1+. After you have completed Inventory No. 1, seal it with the seal provided. 5. Read the instructions on Inventory No. 2. (Do not Open the others.) 6. Turn the page and begin. '7. After you have completed Inventory No. 2, seal it and put it aside. 8. Read the instructions for Inventory No. 3. Complete and seal it as in the case of Nos. 1 and ‘2. 9. After having completed all three of the mimeographed inventories, complete the "Study of Values“ booklet. (Read the directions on Page 2 of the booklet be— fore beginning.) 10. You may complete all of the material in one day or you may do so in two days. However, you should not stop while doing a given test. If you desire to take a break, do so between tests. 84 11. Please complete the material within two days after you receive it and mail it immediately. A stamped envelope is provided for this purpose. 12. Before mailing, please check to be certain that the three inventories have been completed and sealed and the Study of Values booklet has been completed. Place all four of these forms in the self—addressed envelope and seal. Although all the material is numbered, it would facilitate our handling of the data if you put your name on each of the three inventories as well as the Study of Values booklet. In addition, please put your address on the back of Inventory No. 1. The information you submit will be seen only by two persons directly involved in the research project. Your counselor will not have access to the information at any time. Later on you will be given another enve10pe of material to be completed. The counselor was asked to give the client his second envelope Of material at the termination of therapy (during the course of final interview). At the point of termination of therapy for the counselor's last client used in the study, the counselor was asked to fill out the material included in his second enve10pe. As in the case of the first enve10pe, the client was merely given the envelope and asked to take it home and fill out the material. A stamped, self—addressed enVeIOpe was included for the purpose of mailing the completed material to the investigator. The counselor's second personal enVGIOpe included the three self scales and the questionnaire for 85 assessing cultural background information. The client's second envelope included the three self scales, the questionnaire for assessing cultural background information, the Allport-Vernon Study of Values, an empathy scale (the results of which are not reported in this study), and a set of general instructions. These instructions were as follows: This is your second and final envelope of materials to be filled out and mailed to us. You will note that some of the material is the same as before. Again, we solicit your sincerity and honesty while filling out the enclosed material. It is important that you follow these steps (in the order listed) . 1. Take the inventory marked No. 1 from the enve10pe (put all other materials aside and do not open them for any reason until you have completed Inventory No. 1. 2. Read the instructions on the cover of In— ventory No. 1. 3. Turn the page and begin. 1+. After you have completed Inventory No. 1, seal it with the seal provided. 5. Read the instructions on Inventory No. 2 (do not open the others). 6. Turn the page and begin. 7. After you have completed Inventory No. 2, seal it and put it aside. 8. Read the instructions for Inventory No. 3. Complete and seal it as in the case of NOS. 1 and 2. 9. After having completed all three of the mimeographed inventories, complete the 86 "Study of Values" booklet. (Read the directions on Page 2 of the booklet be— fore beginning). 10. Complete the ”Empathic Ability Scale." 11. Fill out the "Questionnaire for Back— ground Information." 12. You may complete all of the material in one day or you may do so in two days. However, you should not stop while doing a given test. If you desire to take a break, do so between tests. 13. Please complete the material within two days after you receive it and mail it immediately. A stamped envelope is provided for this purpose. 14. Before mailing, please check to be certain that all of the material has been completed. Please put your name on all of the material. Again, we would like to remind you that the information you submit will be seen only by the two persons directly involved in the research project. Thank you again for your c00peration. A final visit was made to the counselors for the purpose of obtaining from the counselors Case Rating Scales, the record form, and other information which the counselor was asked to provide 1"Elative to the therapeutic situation involving his clients. The constituents of the nontherapy control group (sophomores and juniors enrolled at Michigan State University) were given the Self scales and the Study of Values during the 30 days' period at some point within which each member of the experimental group 8’7 received his or her first envelope. The controls were asked to take the material home and fill it out with the general instructions being similar to those given the experimental group. The completed material was collected by the investigator one week later in a class— room setting. Adl of these persons understood that they were not to participate if they had ever been exposed to personal adjustment counseling or psychotherapy. These individuals were again given the scales and the Study of Values after counseling had been terminated for the last client in the experimental group. Of the 50 control students completing the-pre— therapy material, 6 were disqualified because of recent involvement in counseling which had personal adjustment implications. An addi— tional '7 members of this group were unavailable for follow—up testing (corresponding to posttherapy testing in the case of the experimental group). Thus, the useable individuals in this group were 37 in number. In the case of the control group which consisted of students in group counseling for improvement of study habits, the counselor administered the three self scales and the Study of Values at the beginning and at the end of the period of counseling (approximately three months). As mentioned earlier, this group actually consisted 9f tWo classes composed of 13 and 16 members. The same coun— Selor was involved in both classes. 88 Means of Analysis of Data Normality was assumed in the case of each distribution statistically treated in this study. In the case of distributions upon which product moment coefficients of correlation were obtained, linearity of regression and equal intervals were assumed. The t—test for the significance of differences between means was applied only after the distributions involved had been tested for homogeneity of variance. This was done by means of the Bartlett Test. To obtain an indication of pretherapy differential standing of the three groups relative to the self—concept, self—ideal dis— crepancy, and self—ideal personality discrepancy scores, the following operations were performed: 1. The means for the distributions of self—concept, self—ideal discrepancy, and self-ideal personality discrepancy scores were obtained for each of the three groups. 2. The t—test was applied to determine the signifi— cance of the differences between these group means. To obtain an indication of counseling progress as measured by the self scales, the following operations were performed: 1. The t—test (appropriate for correlated dis— tributions) was applied to determine the sig- nificance of the difference between the mean pretherapy self—concept score and the mean posttherapy self—concept score for each of the three groups. 89 2. The t-test (appropriate for correlated dis- tributions) was applied to determine the sig- nificance Of the difference between the mean pretherapy self—ideal discrepancy score and the mean posttherapy self-ideal discrepancy score for each of the three groups. 3. The t-test (apprOpriate for correlated dis- tributions) was applied to determine the sig— nificance Of the difference between the mean pretherapy self—ideal personality discrepancy score and the mean posttherapy self—ideal personality discrepancy score for each of the three groups. As an indication Of movement Of the ideal self-concept over the period Of counseling, the following Operations were performed: 1. The discrepancy between thepretherapy self-concept and the pretherapy ideal self— concept was computed and the mean of this distribution of scores was obtained. 2. The discrepancy between the pretherapy self-concept and the posttherapy ideal self- concept was computed for each member of the therapy group and the mean Of this distribution was obtained. 3. Inasmuch as the pretherapy self—concept con- stituted a constant factor in Operations 1 and 2, the difference between the mean obtained by means of Operation 1 and that Obtained by means of Operation 2 represents the amount of change in the ideal self-concept over theperiod Of counseling. The t-test (appropriate for corre- lated distributions) was applied to determine the significance of such change. These Operations were also performed to determine the movement of the concept Of the ideal personality over the period 9‘5 Counseling . 90 Product moment coefficients Of correlation were Obtained between the following variables: 1. 10. The score representing counseling progress and the reciprocal of the differences between the counselor's I.S.C. score and that Of the client. The score representing counseling progress and total counselor—client agreement score on the list of "Other Cultural Background Factors." The score representing counseling progress and total cultural background similarity (the sum of the reciprocal of the difference between the coun- selor's and the client's I.S.C. scores and coun— selor-client agreement score on other cultural background factors) . Pretherapy self-concept and posttherapy self-concept scores for the therapy group. Pretherapy self-ideal discrepancy and posttherapy self—ideal discrepancy scores for the therapy group. Pretherapy self-ideal personality discrepancy and posttherapy self-ideal personality discrepancy scores. Pretherapy ideal self scores and posttherapy ideal self scores for the constituents Of the therapy group. Pretherapy ideal personality scores and posttherapy ideal personality scores for the constituents of the therapy group. Scores representing change in the ideal self-concept and scores representing change in the concept of the ideal personality over the period of counseling for the constituents of the therapy group. Judged progress scores and counsehng progress scores as determined by the narrowing of the self-ideal discrepancy over the period Of coun- seling. 11. 12. 91 The score representing movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self concept and counselor-client cultural background similarity. The score representing movement Of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self- concept and counseling progress. CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pretherapy Group Differentials With Respect tO Measures Of the Phenomenal Self Before an attempt is made to evaluate the results Obtained with respect tO the main variables manipulated in the course Of this study, it is deemed necessary tO indicate the extent to which the self scales actually discriminated between the three groups involved in the study. These groups have previously been labeled the "Nontherapy Group," the "Group Consisting Of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits," and the ”Therapy Group." Figure I presents the differences between the means Of the three groups relative to the three important scores provided by the scales. The results Of the t—test for the significance of the differences between the various means are also given in Figure I. The results presented in Figure I show that there are signi— fiCant differences between the means for the Therapy Group and the NOl’ltherapy Group relative tO all three scores. This also holds true When the Nontherapy Group is compared with the group consisting Of 81illClents in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits. When the 92 1 Nontherapy Group (N=37) t=7.66 p<.01 Self-Concept ean=116 S. D- =78 (l) t=7.9h p<.01 Self—Ideal Dis- crepancy Mean=396 S . D . 432 (l) t=7 .46 V p<.01 Self-Ideal Person— ality Discrepancy ean=2+00 S . D . =31 (1) Figure I. t-scores, V 93 2 Therapy Group (N=20) Self—Concept Mean=311+ S . D . =56 (2) 13714471 p<. 0]. V I f .3 Students in Group Counseling for Im~ proving Study Habits (N=29) t=l.50 p< .10 \V Self-Ideal Dis— crepancy Meanfléca S.Di=15'7 (2) t=hJ5 p< . 01 A / LL Self-Concept =2 .-_— ( 3) t=2.20 p<.05 \ Self—Ideal Person— ality Discrepancy Mean=758 S . D . =159 (2) t=4.35 > p<. 0]. Self—Ideal Dis- crepancy Mean=6h6 S.D.=235 (3) t=1 .83 p<. 10 \ Self—Ideal Person— ality Discrepancy Mean=6l+8 S . D . =253 (3 ) and their levels Of significance, for differences between group means relative tO pretherapy self-concept and discrepancy scores. 91+ Therapy Group is compared with the group consisting Of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits, the means rela— tive to only one Of the significant scores (the self—ideal discrepancy score) present the possibility Of representing different pOpulation and, as shown in Figure I, this difference is significant only at the .05 percent level Of confidence. It thus seems that, generally speaking, the Therapy Group and the group consisting Of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits are both representatives Of a common pOpulation with reSpect to the phenomena assessed by the self scales. The suggestion is, then, that our sample Of students with academic problems are also suffering from phenomenal self incongruity. Their inadequate academic adjustment, then, becomes more or less a reflection Of personal maladjustment as defined relative to phenomenal self—dissatisfaction. It should be borne in mind that a relatively high self-concept score is indicative Of a tendency to rate oneself relatively low on the traits which constitute the self—concept scale. A high self— concept score, then, is suggestive Of relatively low phenomenal self- appraisal. The Nontherapy Group Obviously effected a mean self- COncept score which is significantly lower than that of the other two groups. This means that the constituents Of the Nontherapy Group have a significantly higher concept Of themselves relative tO the traits iI'l’volved than the constituents Of the other two groups. 95 The higher the self—ideal discrepancy score, greater is the discrepancy between the phenomenal self-concept and the ideal self-concept. From Figure I, it is easily seen that the constituents of the Nontherapy Group effected a mean self-ideal discrepancy score which is significantly lower than that of the other two groups. This means that the constituents of the Nontherapy Group are more satisfied with their perception of their self qualities than is the case with the constituents of the Therapy Group and the group consisting Of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits. This same trend presents itself when the mean self-ideal personality discrepancy score for the Nontherapy Group is compared with those for the other two groups. An analysis Of the item scores reveals that the Therapy Group and the group consisting Of Students in Group Counseling for Improving Study Habits effected a higher mean self-concept, self-ideal dis- crepancy, and self-ideal personality discrepancy score on each Of the 52 items than the Nontherapy Group. This means that the former groups rated themselves lower on the characteristics listed under each Of the 52 items and were more dissatisfied with themselves relative to these characteristics than was the Case with the latter group. 96 Changes in Self-Perceptions as a Function of Counseling Hypothesis #1 was stated as follows: Individuals exposed to personal adjustment coun- seling will show a greater increase in self-satis- faction Over the period of counseling than indivi- duals not receiving such counseling, but tested over a similar period of time. To test this hypothesis, the t-test was applied to determine the significance Of the difference between pretherapy and post- therapy mean self-ideal discrepancy scores for each of the three groups. The scores representing change in self-perceptions for the three groups and for the counselors involved are pre- sented in Table IV. In applying the t—test, the assumption of normality was made. Before applying the t-test, the Bartlett Test for Homogeneity Of Variance was applied. This method was employed to test the hYpothesis that pretherapy and posttherapy scores entered in Tables IV and V are random samples from populations with a Common variance. The test of significance for this hypothesis is made by means Of Chi Square. None Of these Chi Squares were found to be significant at the .05 level Of confidence. Con— Sequently, the null hypothesis is supported, with the implication being that the pretherapy and posttherapy scores for each Of the three groups are homogeneous in terms of variance. 97 Table IV. Mean Changes in Self-Concept, Self-Ideal Discrepancy and Self-Ideal Personality Discrepancy Scores for the Three Groups and Counselors Over the Counseling Period. Self- Self- Self- Concept Ideal Ideal Group Scores Discrepancy Personality Scores Discrepancy Scores Pre Post Diff Pre Post Diff Pre Post Diff Non- = M= = M: = M= .- therapy 176 178 -2>i< 396 393 3* 400 412 -12>:< (N=37) SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= 78 78 192 195 191 201 Ther- = = = = = = apy 321 266 55 792 675 117 784 642 142 (N=20) SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= 58 109 159 272 160 287 Study = = = = = = Prob— 281 277 4* 646 659 -13>l< 648 668 -20>i< lems SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= SD= Group 96 81 235 211 253 215 (N=29) C301.1.n— M= = = = = = Selors 267 261 6* 564 572 - >i< 649 670 -21>i< >:‘These differences are not statistically significant. Pre = Pretherapy. 13081: = Posttherapy. Diff = Difference between pretherapy and posttherapy means. Minus = Posttherapy score higher than pretherapy score. The t-values listed in Table V, then, 98 are not considered to be contaminated by hetrogeneity Of variance Of pretherapy and post- therapy scores. Table V. Coefficients of Correlation Between Pretherapy and Posttherapy Self Scores and t-values for the Significance of the Differences Between Pre— therapy and Posttherapy Means for the Therapy Group Pretherapy PO sttherapy Mean Mean t r Self-Concept Score 321 266 3.05 .67 p<. 01 p<., 01 Self—Ideal Discrepancy 792 675 2.40 .54 Score p<.05 p<.01 Self-Ideal Personality Discrepancy 784 642 3.09 . 57 Sc-ore p<. 01 p<. 01 As a group , students receiving no therapy failed to show Statistically significant change in self-concept, self—ideal discrepancy and/or self—ideal personality discrepancy scores over the period designated as the counseling period. to the amount Of change shown by the constituents Of the study problems group, Likewise, the counselors failed to show significant change relative tO the three self scores. The same is true with respect 99 As a group, the students involved in personal adjustment counseling showed significant change relative to all three Of the self scores and all changes were in the hypothesized direction. In the case of the therapy group, it was also found that pretherapy self scores were significantly correlated with respective posttherapy self scores. These results are also entered in Table V. Although the constitutents of the therapy group tended to show an increase in self-satisfaction over the period Of counseling, the significant positive coefficients Of correlation suggest that over the counseling period, they tended to maintain their positions relative to each other with respect to the degree Of self-satisfaction. The suggestion is, then, that certain individuals have a general tendency to rate themselves low relative tO their ideal self-concept, that is, when compared with other individuals, but they nevertheless Show a decrease in this tendency as a function of counseling. Inasmuch as only the therapy group showed a statistically Significant increase in self-satisfaction over the period Of counseling, the results tend to support hypothesis #1. Hypothesis #2 embraced the following prediction: The posttherapy concept Of the ideal personality will not differ significantly from the pretherapy concept Of the ideal personality. The method Of Obtaining ideal self and ideal personality ScOres was explained in the preceding chapter. The Bartlett Test was applied to determine whether or not the pretherapy and post— the3-"apy ideal self scores constituted samples Of populations with i" 100 a common variance. The same Operation was performed relative to pretherapy and posttherapy ideal personality scores. The Chi Square for pretherapy and posttherapy ideal self scores was found to be 2.48 and that for pretherapy and posttherapy ideal personality scores was found tO be 2.62. Neither Of these Chi Squares was found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence. The hypothesis that the pretherapy and posttherapy scores are from populations with a common variance is supported. The results Obtained by means Of the application of the t-test and pretherapy-posttherapy coefficients of correlation of ideal self and ideal personality scores are presented in Table VI. The results presented in Table VI show that the concept of the ideal personality did not change significantly over the period Of coun- seling. Consequently, hypothesis #2 is supported. The theory underlying the study holds that the ideal self-concept is capable Of changing as a function of counseling and it was hypothesized that the ideal self-concept would show a significantly greater degree of change Over the period of counseling than the concept of the ideal personality. The results presented in Table VI show that the ideal self-concept did not change significantly over the period of counseling. The t-test Was applied to determine the significance of the difference between the mean change in the ideal self-concept and the mean change in the concept Of the ideal personality. The results Of the Bartlett Test failed to reject the hypothesis that these two distributions Of Scores representing change over the counseling period are from 101 Table VI. Coefficients of Correlation Between Pretherapy and Posttherapy Ideal Self and Ideal Person- ality Scores and the Significance of the Differ- ences Between Pretherapy and Posttherapy Means Relative to These Scores Me an t r Discrepancy Between Pre— therapy Self—Concept and Pretherapy Ideal Self— Concept (Pretherapy Ideal Self Concept) 792 0.40 .99 p<.70 p<.01 Discrepancy Between Pre- therapy Self-Concept and Posttherapy Ideal Self— Concept (Posttherapy Ideal Self—Concept) 794 _ Discrepancy Between Pre— therapy Self—Concept and Pretherapy Concept Of Ideal Personality (Pretherapy Concept of the Ideal Personality) 784 1.64 .98 p<. 20 p<.01 Discrepancy Between Pre- thei-"apy Self-Concept and POSttherapy Concept Of Ideal Personality (Posttherapy Concept of the Ideal Personality) 791 \ 102 populations with a common variance. These results have been entered in Table VII. Table VII. Relationship Between Change in the Ideal Self- C'Oncept and Change in the Concept of the Ideal Personality Over the Period Of Counseling. Mean Change in Mean Change in Ideal Self-Concept Concept of Ideal Personality t r 51 45 0.63 —o.02 p<.60 p<. 90 The value of t was found to be 0.63. This value Of t is not significant at the .05 level Of confidence. These results suggest that the amount of change in the ideal self-concept over the period of counseling does not differ significantly from the amount of change in the concept of the ideal personality. Thus, hypothesis #3 which embraced the prediction that the pretherapy—posttherapy change in the ideal self-concept would be significantly greater than thepretherapy— posttherapy change in the concept of the ideal personality is not Supported. These results tend to suggest that both the ideal self-concept and the concept of the ideal personality, as assessed by the self scales, are not significantly influenced by counseling. It seems that they are both relatively stable and that the progress shown by the 103 constituents of the therapy group resulted from advancement of the self-concept toward the ideal self—concept. It seems that the ideal self—concept does not tend to move toward the self- concept as a function of counseling. These results tend to confirm the findings of previous research. Butler and Haigh (8) found the self-concept to change much more significantly than the ideal self-concept over the period of counseling. Lesser (45) obtained similar results . The Relationship Between Increase in Self-Satisfaction Over the Period of Counseling and Counselors' Judgments Wth Respect to Counseling Progress At the outset, it was stated that a sub-problem embraced by this study was to determine the relationship between counseling Progress as assessed by the self scales and the counselor's judgment With respect to the amount of progress made by his client. Consequently, the difference score resulting from the SuhtI‘action of the posttherapy self-ideal discrepancy score from the Pretherapy self—ideal discrepancy score was correlated with the tOtal judged progress score Obtained by summing the counse- lor's ratings Of the client on the items constituting the judged PPOgress scale. Inasmuch as no predictions were made con- cerning negative progress, there is no way Of determining the meaning of such scores relative to judged progress. Consequently, two methods of treating these scores were used in all Operations involving them. Negative scores were assigned the value of zero, reassigned to the distribution of "increased self—satisfaction" scores and this distribution of scores was correlated with the distribution of judged progress scores. The scores constituting the "increased self-satisfaction" distribution were then converted in a manner that resulted in all positive scores. This was done by adding the highest negative score (-408) to the highest positive score (466) and by this means obtaining the limits of the distribution (1 to 874) . The score Of -408, then, was assigned the numerical value of 1, the score of 466 was assigned the value Of 874, and the scores in between were assigned appropriate values based on their numerical relationships to the highest and lowest scores. This Operation was performed to determine whether or not the extent 0‘3 increase in phenomenal self-dissatisfaction is related to judged Progress. The distribution resulting from this method of conversion Was also correlated with judged progress. The results are pre— sented in Table VIII. Table VIII. Coefficients of Correlation Between Judged Progress and Increased Phenomenal Self- Satisfaction Over the Period of Counseling \— gegative "Increased Self- atISfaction" Scores Assigned Converted “Increased Self- Satisfaction" Distribution Wf Zero (—408 to 466 = 1 to 874) r-.61 r=.33 “.01 P<-1° 105 The results entered in Table VIII suggest that there is a significant positive correlation between judged progress and our measure Of increased self-satisfaction over the period Of counseling when nega— tive "increased self—satisfaction" scores are treated as having zero value. When the distribution is modified to give differential values to negative scores based upon their magnitudes, the coefficient Of correlation fails to achieve significance at the .05 level of confidence. It thus appears that the extent to which clients become more satisfied with their phenomenal selves correlates significantly and positively with counselors' judgment Of progress, but when increased dissatisfaction as well as increased satisfaction is con- Sidered, the correlation between these variables fails to achieve Significance . Counseling Progress and Counselor-Client Cultural Background Similarity The main hypothesis Of this study is that counseling progress (as defined) is positively related tO counselor-client cultural back- ground similarity. Table IX presents counseling progress scores (increases in self-satisfaction or decreases in self-ideal discrepancy) and counselor—client cultural background similarity scores for the 20 Clients constituting the experimental group. 106 Table IX. Counseling Progress (Improvement) and Counselor— Client Cultural Background Similarity Scores Self—Ideal Discrepancyl Counselor—Client Cultural Background V Similarity Pre— Post— PrO— Reversed CO—Cl Reversed CO—Cl ther— ther— gress ISC Diff. ISC Diff. Sub— apy apy (Pre- (Educ . excl. ) (Educ . incl. ) ject IDOst) - l Direc— i Con— Direc— Con— tion Of ver— tion Of ver— Diff. ted Diff. ted Omitted! Diff. Omitted Diff. . Score Score 1 525 641 64 26 2 19 27 27 2 627 497 130 22 3 1 23 1 3 738 541 197 29 j 8 38 16 4 830 747 83 28 l 7 37 15 ' 5 763 456 307 33 ‘ 12 38 16 fl” 6 800 725 75 23 i 22 28 26 . l 7 889 463 426 32 i ll 31 9 8 934 978 —44 14 T 31 9 45 9 878 412 466 32 , 13 37 17 10 796 705 91 27 g 6 32 10 11 1026 963 63 1 i 44 2 52 12 659 312 446 28 i 17 25 29 13 853 640 213 6 j 34 l 53 14 971 1087 —116 27 1 18 22 32 15 671 731 300 33 12 38 16 16 413 156 257 31 14 36 14 17 760 843 —83 29 8 34 12 18 899 1307 —408 23 22 24 3O 19 1025 605 420 27 19 34 20 20 800 705 95 3O 9 31 9 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 107 Converted Agreement Reversed ISC Diff. Self-Ideal Personality Score for Other (Educ. Incl.) plus Discre ancy Factors Agreement Score for Other Factors Pre— POSt- (Pre— ther— ther— Post) apy apy 26 53 531 454 77 15 38 617 562 55 16 54 719 538 184 24 61 795 758 37 32 70 749 475 274 21 49 803 684 119 25 56 874 532 342 1 10 959 957 2 2'7 64 867 445 422 34 66 790 678 112 9 11 900 877 23 14 39 667 212 455 10 11 809 632 177 4 26 1062 1117 —55 1+0 78 618 363 255 43 79 404 170 234 15 49 764 831 -67 28 52 916 1320 —404 32 66 994 550 444 17 48 772 680 92 \ 9 10 11 12 13 1.08 Pretherapy and posttherapy self-ideal personality discrepancy scores and difference scores representing the change in self- ideal personality discrepancy over the period of counseling are also entered in Table IX. Although counseling progress is not defined as a decrease in self-ideal personality discrepancy over the period Of counseling, it is inherent in the theoretical considerations under- lying this study that to the extent which the client and counselor are similar with respect to cultural background factors, the client's self- concept, over the period Of counseling, will move toward his concept of the ideal personality. It should be remembered that it is the writer's contention that the ideal self-concept emerges from the concept Of the ideal personality and it is the latter which is more directly molded by cultural experiences. The ideal self-concept is believed to be more uniquely descriptive Of the individual's self- actualizing needs. Consequently, it is held that the development Of the ideal self-concept is influenced by both the individual's unique SYStem of needs and his concept of the ideal personality acquired as a result of cultural experiences. Although the ideal self—concept is Considered a compromise between his. perception Of the social stereotype of the ideal personality and his unique need system, it is held that the individual is capable of phenomenally discriminating between his ideal self, the same which is organized as a result Of this compromise, and his broader concept of the ideal 109 personality. Thus, the ideal self-concept and the concept Of the ideal personality are expected to share common elements. It is granted that the self-concept might move more pronouncedly toward the concept Of the ideal personality over the period Of counseling and it is predicted that this movement is directly related to the degree to which the client and counselor share similar cultural backgrounds, but increased silt-satisfaction is determined by the extent to which the discrepancy between the client's self-concept and ideal self- concept is decreased. It is held that the latter is also influenced by counselor-client cultural background similarity. It is the latter that is considered the counseling progress variable in this study. In column 1 of Table IX, the client's number has been entered. The entries in column 2 are pretherapy self—ideal dis- crepancy scores. The entries in column 3 are posttherapy self- ideal discrepancy scores and in column 4 has been entered the difference score Obtained by subtracting the posttherapy self-ideal discrepancy score from the pretherapy self-ideal discrepancy score. The entries in columns 5 through 10 are measures Of Counselor-client cultural background similarity. The entries in columns 5 and 6 are reversed counselor—client difference scores on the Index Of Status Characteristics, excluding education. In the Case Of the entries in column 5, the direction Of counselor- client difierence has been omitted. This means that nO consideration 110 was given, in the case of scores listed in this column, to whether or not the client has a higher I.S.C. score than his counselor. The entries in column 6 represent reversed counselor-client difference scores converted relative to the extent to which the client approaches or exceeds the counselor's social class level (in terms of background history) as measured by the Index Of Status Characteristics. The method of conversion used results in negative scores in the case Of clients having lower I.S.C. scores than their counselors and positive scores in the case Of clients having higher I.S.C. scores than their counselors. The distirbution resulting from treating counselor-client I.S.C. difference scores in this manner ranged from -32 to 11. The scores were converted by assigning appropriate positive values to each Of them to yield the distribution entered in column 6 (ranging from 1 to 44). The entries in columns 7 and 8 were derived by the same methods as were the entries in columns 5 and 6, the only difierence iS that education is included in the I.S.C. score. The entries in column 9 are counselor—client agreement scores relative to the 35 cultural background factors not included in the Index of Status Characteristics. In column 10 the reversed counselor-client I~S-C . difference score, including education and omitting the dir'eCtion Of counselor-client differences, has been combined with the counselor-client agreement score relative tO the 35 additional Cuitual background factors to yield the total cultural background Similarity score . 111 The entries om column 11 are pretherapy self-ideal person- ality discrepancy scores and in column 12 have been entered post- therapy self-ideal personality scores. The entries in column 13 are difference scores Obtained by subtracting the posttherapy self—ideal personality discrepancy score from the pretherapy self-ideal per— sonality discrepancy score. Each Of the distributions composed of counselor—client cultural background similarity scores was correlated with the distribution Of progress scores (the difference scores Obtained by subtracting the posttherapy self-ideal discrepancy score from the pretherapy self-ideal discrepancy score). The counselor— client cultural background similarity scores were also correlated with the difference scores obtained by subtracting the posttherapy self-ideal personality discrepancy score from the pretherapy self- ideal personality discrepancy score. The results Obtained by means of these Operations are presented in Table X. Since the direction of the value Of r was predicted, the level of significance Of t-scores was determined by applying the One—tailed test. The results entered in Table X show that reversed counselor—client difference I.S.C. scores (direction Omitted and education excluded) correlate positively and sig— nificantly with counseling progress as determined by the amount 0f decrease in self—ideal discrepancy over the period of counseling Table X . 112 Coefficients Of Correlation Between Counseling Progress Variable and Counselor—Client Cul— tural Background Similarity Variable Counselor—Client Cultural Background Similarity Variables Changes in) Phenomenal Self Structure Over the Period Of Counseling (Counseling Progress Variable ) Pre—Posttherapy Difi . in Self—Ideal Discrepancy Score Pre-Posttherapy Diff. in Self—Ideal Personality Dis— crepancy Score Neg.=0 i Converted Neg.=O ' Converted (0—47) Scores (0—46) Scores (—41 tO 47 (_40 to 46) =1—87 =1—87 I . S . C . (excluding educ . ) reversed r=.36 r=.30 r=.47 r=.39 c ounselor-client t=1 . 63 t=1 . 33 t=2 . 25 t=1 . 79 differences (direc— p<.05 p<.10 p<.03 p<.05 tion omitted) . , I . S . C . (including educ.) reversed r=.32 =.31 r=.56 r=.31 counselor—client t=1 . 43 t=1 . 38 t=2 . 86 t=1 . 38 differences (direc— p<. 10 p<. 10 p<. 01 p<. 10 tion omitted.) I . S . C . (excluding educ.) reversed r=-.24 r=—.46 =-.17 r=-.43 Converted differ— t=1 .05 t=2.20 t=.73 t=2.02 ence scores p<.20 p<.03 p<.25 p<.03 (—32 to 11)=1_44 Table X . (confinued) 113 Counselor-Client Cultural Background, Similarity Variablesl . .- .- -r.l—--—-_. aL-l_i*5l— - Changes in Phenomenal Self Structure Over the Period of Counseling (Counseling Progress Variable ) Pre—Posttherapy Diff. in Self—Ideal Discrepancy Score Pre—Posttherapy Diff . in Self—Ideal Personality Dis- E . crepanc Score Neg . =0 Converted Neg. =0 Converted ' (0—47) Scores (0—46) . Scores " (—41 to 47) :(-40 to 46) .; E =1—87 =1=87 I .S.C. (including E educ.) reversed E r=—.18 r=—.16 r=—.11 r=—.13 converted differ— E t=.77 t=.68 t=.46 t=.56 ence scores E p<.25 p<.25 p<.35 p<.30 (-37 t0 15l=1-53 E Other Cultural ' Background r=.43 =.24 =.47 r=.22 Factors Con— t=2.02 t=1.05 t=2.25 t=.96 verted Agree-. p<.02 p<.20 p<.03 p<.20 ment Scores (~9 to 33) = 1=L+3 I .S.C. (including educ.) reversed r=.45 r=.36 r=.49 r=.32 C Ounselor—client t=2 . 14 t=1 . 63 t=2 . 38 t=1 . 44 difference scores p<.02 p<.05 p<.02 p<.10 (direction omitted) plus converted agreement scores for Other Cultural Background Factors 11.4 when those individuals making “negative progress" are assigned a progress score of zero. In the case of the converted score (giving consideration to the extent Of "negative progress”) the coefficient Of correlation fails to achieve significance at the .05 level Of confidence. The reversed counselor-client difference I . S.C. score (direction omitted and excluding education) correlates significantly and positively with the. amount of decrease in self-ideal personality discrepancy scores over the period Of counseling, both when negative scores are assigned the value Of zero and when the distribution is converted to give con- Sideration tO the magnitudes of negative scores. When education is included in the I.S.C. score, the only Significant coefficient of correlation is found between this measure 0f cultural background similarity and the amount of decrease in Self~ideal personality discrepancy scores with negative scores being assigned the value of zero. All of the other coefficients in this category approach Significance but tend to fall short of the .05 level of confidence. In the distribution referred to as converted counselor-client I-S.C. difference scores, a low score means that the client's developmental environment was inferior, relative to the social Class hierarchy, to that of the counselor and a very high score means that the client's developmental environment was superior 115 to that of his counselor with respect to the social class hierarchy. Consequently, the negative coefficient of correlation between this distribution and the counseling progress score tends to support hypothesis #5 which was stated as follows: Counseling progress is negatively related to the extent to which the client exceeds his counselor in terms Of background social class standing . The coefficients of correlation between this distribution and both the amount of decrease in self—ideal discrepancy and in self- ideal personality discrepancy are significant when converted scores are used, giving consideration to the extent Of ”negative progress." From these results, it seems that not only does the client whose background environment (with respect to the social class hierarchy) is superior to that of his counselor tend to fail to experience an increase in phenomenal self-satisfaction over the period Of counseling, he may also become more self-dissatisfied, a condition which seems to be directly related to the extent to which he exceeds his counselor in terms of background social class standing. When education is included, the results fail to achieve significance. Counselor-client agreement scores on the 35 additional cultural background factors tend to correlate significantly with the amount Of decrease in self-ideal discrepancies and in self—ideal personality discrepancies when individuals making "negative progress" are assigned a progress score of zero. The total cultural background 116 score (reversed counselor-client I.S.C. difference score, plus education, combined with the counselor-client agreement score on the 35 additional cultural background factors) correlates positively and significantly with counseling progress when "negative progress" scores are assigned the value Of zero. In summary, then, it seems that counseling progress, as determined by the narrowing Of the discrepancy between the self- concept and the ideal self-concept as a function Of counseling, is positively and significantly related to certain aspects of counselor- client cultural background similarity. It seems that less progress (and in some cases, ”negative progress") is made when the client's background experiences are characterized by status charac- teristics which are higher on the social class scale than those Which tended to characterize his counselor's background experiences. These findings tend to support the main hypotheses embraced by thi 8 study . The Movement of the Client's Self-Concept Toward the Counselor's Ideal Self-Concept Over the Period of Counseling The theory underlying this study holds that the ideal self- concept is influenced by the concept of the ideal personality and the latter is influenced by cultural experiences. Thus, it is assumed that the extent to which the counselor is similar to his 117 client in terms of cultural background conditions is positively re- lated to the extent to which the counselor's ideal self is similar to that of his client. If this is true and if counseling progress is positively related to counselor-client cultural background similarity, one would expect that to the extent which the counselor and client share similar cultural backgrounds, the client's self—concept will tend to move toward the counselor's ideal self-concept. Conse- quently, it was hypothesized that the extent of movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self-concept is positively related to counselor-client cultural background similarity. To test this hypothesis, the score representing movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self-concept Was correlated with aSpects of counselor-client cultural background Similarity. These results have been entered in Table XI. Table XI. Coefficients of Correlation Between the Score Repre- senting Movement of the Client's Self-Concept Toward the Counselor's Ideal Self-Concept and Counselor- Client Cultural Background Similarity _da Movement of Client's Self-Concept Movement of Client's Self-Con- Toward Counselor's Ideal Self— cept Toward Counselor's Ideal and Reversed Counselor-Client Self and Total Cultural Back- IoS.C. Difference Score ground Similarity Score LEduc, Excl.) r=.23 i r=.31 p<.29 p<.10 Although these coefficients of correlation are not significant at the .05 level of confidence, they are of such to hint that there might 118 be a relationship between the extent of movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self-concept and measures of counselor-client cultural background similarity. However, it must be concluded that hypothesis #5 is not supported by these findings. The score representing movement of the client's self-concept toward the counselor's ideal self-concept was also correlated with coun- seling progress as defined by the narrowing of the discrepancy between the client's self-concept and his ideal self-concept over the period of counseling. This coefficient of correlation was found to be .85 and is significant at the .01 level Of confidence. Thus, it seems that counseling progress as herein defined is .positively and significantly related to the extent to which the client's self-concept approaches the counselor's ideal self-concept over the period of c ounseling. CI—IAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS , CRITICISMS, AND SUGGESTED FURT HER RE SEARC H Introduction In general, the findings Of this study support the hypothesis that counseling progress (as defined) is related positively tO coun- selor—client similarity with respect to certain cultural background factors. However, the cultural background factors treated in this study cannot be considered exhaustive with respect to the counselor— client cultural background similarity variable. Conceiveably, there are many other cultural background factors which might be important in this connection. It is possible that the measure Of counseling progress is not sufficiently inclusive Of the important phenomenal self materials. Per— haps more consideration should be given to the organization Of the phenomenal self than was given herein. It is possible that the writer could have been more parsimonious in terms Of concepts, techniques and terminology . Counseling Progress “The Scales The scales for assessing counseling progress were constructed 119 120 for the purpose Of this study. They seem to have certain advantages over the Q—sort method but upon repeated use Of these scales, they may present certain disadvantages which cannot be predicted at this time. Some Of the advantages are: 1. The scales require less completion time than Q—sorts involving the same number of charac— teristics. 2. The scales are self—administered. 3. Being self—administered, they can be completed during the individual's most relaxed moments, in private, a condition which reduces consideration for social censure. 4. The scales yield measures Of individual phenomenal self—constructs (self—concepts, ideal self concept, and concept of the ideal, personality) as well as the relationship between concepts (self-ideal, self-Ideal personality and ideal self—ideal personality discrepancies). 5. The scales provide a method for comparing the pre— therapy score for any one of the constructs with the midtherapy or posttherapy scores for itself or for the other two constructs. Since’the self scales are self—administered, they provide an Opportunity for increasing the size Of samples used in counseling PTOgress studies. TO date, most Of the studies dealing with the COunseling progress variable have involved from one to thirty clients. The chief reason for using such small samples lies with the fact that it is extremely inconvenient and time consuming to administer individual Q—sorts, or similar techniques requiring aLdrninistration by someone other than the client, before and after 121 therapy. In addition, the condition Of being self-administered reduces the probability of examiner's influence, or perhaps more importantly, variation in examiner's influence from client to client in the client's endeavor tO describe his phenomenal self, ideal self, and concept Of the ideal personality. This method Of administration reduces the anxiety which is usually associated with a defined testing situation and, consequently, the individual is more emotionally free to describe his phenomenal self-concepts. He is probably less defensive while using this method tO describe his phenomenal self than would be the case if someone else were administering the scales to him and hence his perceptive qualities relative to his phenomenal self are keener and less contaminated. Although the construct should be further investigated, the d- score described in this study which relates to information assessed by the scales seems tO be an indicator Of the degree Of defensiveness with which one attempts to describe his phenomenal self. Conse— quently, it shows possibilities as a validity indicator, suggesting the degree to which information assessed by the scales is truly des— Cl"iptive Of the individual's phenomenal self. Even phenomenal self theorists do not consider the individual to be completely free from defensive or conflicting emotional attitudes tO describe his phenomenal self. Rogers says: "He (the individual) may have some exper- ienCes which are inconsistent with his perceptions, but he either 122 denies these experiences tO awareness or symbolizes them in such a way that they are consistent with his general picture" (60, p. 321) . Such a denial tO awareness Of phenomenal self materials and such symbolizations are considered by the writer to contaminate the indi- vidual's description of the phenomenal self picture. Consequently, knowledge concerning the extent Of these reactions is important when one attempts to assess and manipulate phenomenal self con— structs. Some indicator of the extent Of these reactions is needed and the d—score shows a promise in this direction. The Self—Concept The results Of this study suggest that students who voluntarily seek personal adjustment counseling tend to have a diminished con— cept Of themselves, relative to the characteristics embraced by the self scales, in comparison with students who have not sought such counseling. However, students seeking counseling for improving Study habits do not tend tO differ significantly from students seeking personal adjustment—type counseling in their description of themselves. This condition suggests that academic problems might well exist as a r‘eflection Of a diminished or inconsistent self—concept. Sink-Ideal Discrepangy It was found that the self—ideal discrepancy for students volun— tarily seeking personal adjustment—type counseling is significantly greater than that for students not seeking any type Of counseling. 123 It is clearly indicated that phenomenal self-dissatisfaction is capable of motivating individuals to become involved in personal adjustment counseling. It was also found that the self-ideal discrepancy for students seeking counseling for improving study habits is signifi- cantly greater than that for students who are not seeking any type Of counseling. It was noted that the mean d—score (considered tO represent a measure Of defensiveness) for this group was higher than that for the students seeking personal adjustment counseling, suggesting that exaggerated guardedness might be responsible for the failure Of these individuals tO directly seek personal adjustment counseling. It is suggested that their academic problems might in and Of themselves reflect a defensive attitude relative tO phenomenal self-perceptions. It is perhaps less threatening tO feel, "I am aca— demically inadequate" than to perceive, "I am generally inadequate and I don't like myself." The mean d-score for students who are not seeking any type Of counseling was found to be higher than that for either Of the groups Whose constituents were seeking some type Of counseling. In this Case the relatively high d—score could possibly indicate wholesome defensiveness which makes for phenomenal self integration inasmuch as the mean self—ideal discrepancy for the Nontherapy Group was feill’lcl to be significantly lower than those for the other two groups. The implication is that the students who constituted the study problems 124 group were using an indirect means to promote a greater degree Of phenomenal self-satisfaction because their guardedness tended to interfere with more direct effort toward this end... Inasmuch as counseling as experienced by this group was chiefly restricted to study problems, the constituent individuals showed no significant decrease in self—ideal discrepancy over the counseling period. It would be Of great value if a follow—up study were conducted to determine whether or not these individuals will show academic improvement which could be considered a result Of the counseling which they received. If their study problems were indeed a re— flection Of general phenomenal self—dissatisfaction, and since they did not become significantly more self—satisfied (as indicated by the results Of the self scales) over the counseling period, we would not expect the constituents Of this group to show significant academic improvement. There is definitely a need for further study in this area. Students involved in personal adjustment counseling effected a Significant decrease in mean self-ideal discrepancy over the coun— seling period. Only four of the twenty clients failed to show a decrease in self—ideal discrepancy. These four individuals actually ShOVved an increase in such discrepancy. For the most part, these individuals voiced dissatisfaction with the counseling situation and Were found to be more defensive (having higher d-scores) 125 than the remaining 16 clients. The latter tends to suggest that inadequate motivation or defensiveness not only interferes with counseling progress, but might result in "negative progress" (reduced self-satisfaction or increased self-dissatisfaction). The Nontherapy Group failed to show a significant decrease in self-ideal discrepancy over the counseling period. Consequently, the improvement seen in the case of the Therapy Group seems to be clearly a result of involvement in personal adjustment counseling. Self-Ideal Personalijy Discrepancy Inasmuch as the self-ideal personality discrepancy varied from group to group and among individuals within each group, in terms Of magnitude and direction, in a manner similar to that of the self-ideal discrepancy, it is possible that the ideal self- concept and the concept Of the ideal personality are one and the Same. It was noted that neither the ideal self-concept nor the C=Oncept of the ideal personality changed significantly over the Period Of counseling. The self-ideal discrepancy and the self- ideal personality discrepancy decreased only as a function of the self-concept moving toward the ideal self-concept and the concept Of the ideal personality over the counseling period. The 1atter two concepts did not move significantly toward the self-concept. 126 Judged Progress The coefficient of correlation between judged progress and counseling progress as determined by the narrowing Of the self- ideal discrepancy over the period of counselingwas found to be statistically significant only when negativeiprogress scores were treated as having zero value. When consideration was given to the extent of negative progress, the coefficient of correlation failed to achieve significance at the .05 level of confidence. Con- sequently, the relationship between judged progress and counseling progress as measured by the self scales is questionable. If these two methods of determining counseling progress were hignly corre- lated, it might lead one to question the value of the scales inasmuch as their administration is much more inconvenient and time consuming than the mere practice of having the counselor to rate the client with respect to the amount of progress which he feels was made. Of course, such ratings would not yield information concerning the nature of the phenomenal self. The latter is considered a major Value of the method used in this study to assess counseling progress. Counselor-Client Cultural Background Similarity and Counseling Progress As mentioned earlier, the cultural background factors treated in this study cannot be considered exhaustive with respect to the 127 counselor-client cultural background similarity variable. In this connection, this study must be considered exploratory. However, the results clearly suggest that the extent to which the counselor and client share similar background experiences relative to certain cultural factors is positively related to counseling progress as herein defined. Further exploratory studies are needed to isolate additional cultural background factors which, when treated in terms of counselor-client similarity, might be important relative to the counseling progress variable. From the results of this study, it seems that phenomena usually considered social class factors are of most importance in this connection. The method of quantifying subjective social class phenomena used by Warner seems to be adequate for statistical purposes. Further, this method is not really incompatible with self theory inasmuch as such quantifications relative to social class phenomena were derived from evaluated participation. This means that these quantifications reflect how individuals involved in class and status stratifications really see themselves and others relative to these phenomena. This concept is indeed compatible with the basic concept underlying this study, that is, the concept that the formation of the ideal self-concept is strongly influenced by the individual's concept of the social stereotype with respect to the ideal personality. It is held that the latter concept is molded by 128 the individual's cultural experiences. It seems that counselor-client similarity relative to their educa- tional levels is not an important factor with respect to the counseling progress variable. Of course, it is obvious that this factor was not allowed to vary sufficiently among counselors and clients to yield con- clusive results. Most of the counselors held Ph. D. degrees and most of the clients were undergraduate college students (ranging from s0phomores to seniors). Only two of the clients were graduate students. It was also observed that counselor-client similarity relative to parental educational levels was not significantly related to counseling progress (as defined). Generally speaking, it seems that education is not an important factor relative to the counseling progress variable. Although the coefficient of correlation failed to reach the desired level of significance, the results of this study hint that the extent to which the counselor and client share similar cultural backgrounds is positively related to the tendency of the client's self-concept to move toward the counselor's ideal self concept over the period of counseling. This could mean that where the counselor and client share similar cultural backgrounds, they also have similar ideals for themselves, a condition which is in keeping with the basic concept underlying this study. In further support of this notion, it was noted that the extent to which the client's self-concept advanced toward his own ideal self-concept correlated very significantly with 129 the extent to which his self-concept moved toward his counselor's ideal self concept over the period of counseling. Hence, if clients whose self-concepts move toward their own ideal self-concept over the period of counseling also tend to move toward their counselorsF ideal self-concept, then the ideal self-concept of the client must be similar to that of his counselor and both of these conditions of move- ment seem to be positively related to counselor-client cultural back— ground similarity. Taken to the extreme, these results might mean that there is an element of indoctrination (though it might be quite subtle), moti- vated by the counselorls ideal self-concept, involved in "client— centered counseling." Taken to the extreme, these results also hint that, on the basis of the extent to which the cultural background of the client is similar to that of his counselor, counseling progress as herein defined could possibly be predicted at the outset of counseling. Of course, many replications of this study, involving larger and more representative samples, are necessary before these hints can take on real meaning. Size and Representativeness of the Sample The experimental sample involved in this study is quite small and Cannot be considered representative of the population of college students seeking and involved in personal adjustment counseling. 130 Only four colleges were involved and they are all located in the State of Michigan. The sample was not selected randomly, but the study included all students involved in personal adjustment counseling at the four colleges during a certain period who vol- unteered to participate, and whose counselors were also willing to participate. This procedure is definitely at variance with methods of random sampling. Moreover, the results of this study cannot validly be generalized to other types of client populations which might embrace counseling situations which are basically different from counseling in a. college setting. The counselors used in this study were generally oriented toward self theory and clientucentered techniques. Perhaps a greater variety of counselors, with respect to orientation, would have yielded different results. A greater variety of counselors with respect to cultural background factors might have also yielded different results. No attempt was made to insure representativeness with respect to all possible variations, in terms of cultural background factors, within the population of counselors. The same can be said concerning the sample of clients. If this study is to be replicated, these conditions should be taken into consideration. As mentioned earlier, the present research should be regarded as an exploratory study only. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was designed to explore the relationship between counselor-client similarity with respect to certain cultural background factors and counseling progress. The cultural background factors considered were restricted to cultural conditions encountered by the counselor and the client during the period which ranged from birth to age 17. Social class factors were found to have a great deal of influence on the concept of the ideal personality in onels society (a basic concept underlying the counseling progress variable) and, con- sequently, Warner's Index of Status Characteristics constituted a major aspect of the cultural background factors considered. Of course, other factors were also considered. In the case of the I.S.C., Warner's original method of quantification was used. In the case of cultural background factors not included in the I.S.C. , quantification was achieved by assigning negative and positive weights to counselor-client agreement and disagreement relative to each of the cultural background factors. These differ— ential weights were based upon the degree to which each factor seemed to influence the concept of the ideal personality. 131 13.2 Counseling progress was defined as a narrowing of the dis- crepancy between the phenomenal self-concept and the ideal self- concept over the period of counseling. Such a decrease in self- ideal discrepancy was considered representative of increased self- s atisfaction . Scales were developed for assessing the following phenomenal self constructs: (1) The self-concept, (2) the ideal self-concept, and (3) the concept of the stereotyped ideal personality. These scales were found to be sufficiently reliable and were validated on divergent diagnostic groups. The items were contributed by 1495 individuals, including graduate and undergraduate college students and prison inmates. Some of these individuals were in therapy at the time the items were contributed. The items were character- istics which the contributing individuals ascribed to the ideal per- sonality in their society. The major theory underlying this study is the concept that Cultural experiences tend to condition the concept of the ideal Personality and that the ideal self-concept is significantly influenced by this concept. It was hypothesized that the concept of the ideal Personality was a relatively stable phenomenon and would not change Significantly over the counseling period. It was hypothesized that the ideal self—concept would show a greater degree of change over the counseling period than the concept of the ideal personality. The 133 former hypothesis, that is, that the concept of the ideal personality is a relatively stable phenomenon, was supported by the results. This concept did not change significantly over the period of counseling. However, the latter hypothesis was not supported by the results. There was no significant difference between the mean change in the ideal self-concept and the mean change in the concept of the ideal personality over the period of counseling. It was predicted that to the extent which the counselor and client shared similar cultural backgrounds, the self-ideal discrepancy would decrease over the period of counseling. This prediction con- stituted the main hypothesis embraced by the study. Generally speaking, this hypothesis was supported by the results. However, counselor-client similarity with respect to certain background factors was not found to be positively related to counseling progress. It was predicted that to the extent which the counselor and client shared similar cultural background experiences, the client's self-concept would advance toward the counselor's ideal self—concept during the course of counseling. Although the coefficient of correlation between counselor-client cultural background similarity and the extent to which the client's self-concept moved toward the counselor's ideal self-concept failed to achieve significance at the desired level of confi- dence, the results were of such to hint that there might be a positive relationship between these variables. 1311- It was hypothesized that individuals involved in personal adjust- ment-type counseling would show more progress than individual failing to receive such counseling, but tested over a similar period of time. This hypothesis was supported by the results. Counselor judgment with respect to progress made by the client was found to be significantly and positively related to coun- seling progress as determined by the narrowing of the self-ideal discrepancy only when "negative progress" scores were treated as having zero value. When the extent of "negative progress" was taken into consideration, the coefficient of correlation between these variables failed to achieve the desired level of significance. It was suggested that the study should be replicated using a larger and, perhaps, more representative sample. The need for isolatingadditional cultural factors which might be important relative to the counseling progress variable was pointed out. 10. 11. BI BLIC GRAPHY AllPort, G.W., Vernon, P.E. and Lindzey, G., A study of values. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1960. Anderson, H.H. , Human behavior and personality growth. In H.H. Anderson and Gladys L. Anderson (Eds.), _& introduction to prgjective techniqges. New York: Prentice— Hall, 1951, 3_25 Bender, I.E. and Hastorf, A.H., The perceptions of persons: forecasting another person's responses on three personality scales. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1950, Q 556—561 Bender, I.E. and Hastorf, A.H., On measuring generalized empathic ability. J. abnorm.. soc. Psychol., 1953, g, 503-506 Bordin, E.S., Psychological counselirlg. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts , 1955 . Brandt, R.M., The accuracy of self estimate: A measure of self—concept reality. Genetic Psychol. Monographs, 1958, iii, 57—74 Breslaw, B.J. , Development of a socio—economic attitude. In R.S. Woodworth (Ed), Archives of Psychology, 1938, No. 226. Butler, J.M. and Haigh, G.V., Changesiin therrelation between self—concepts and ideal concepts consequent upon client-centered counseling. In C..R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond (Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951+, 55-76. Cartwright, D.S. , Methodology in counseling evaluation. J. couns. Psychol. , 1957, A. 263—267. Cohen, J. , An aid in the computation of correlations based on Q—sorts. Psychol. Bull., 1957, 5.1.1:, 138—139. Cottrell, L.S. and Dymond, Rosalind F., The empathic responses. Psychiat., 191—9, 13, 355—359. 135 12. 13. 1L». 15. 16. 1'7. 18. 19- 20. 21. 22. 23. 931+. 136 Cronbach, L.J. , and Glerser, G.C. , Assessing similarity between profiles. Psych. Bull. , 1953, 2, #56—473. Dymond, Rosalind F. , The measurement of empathic ability. J. consult, Psychol., 1924.9, 13, 127—133. Dymond, Rosalind F. , Personality and empathy. _J_. consult, Psychol., 1950, £11, 32+3-350. Dymond, Rosalind F. , The relation of insight and empathy. J. consult, Pix/ch01” 1948, 1a, 228—233. Erickson, G.E., Urban Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954. Ewing, T.N., Changes in attitudes during counseling. J. consultL Psychol., 1951+, _l_, 232-239, Fiedler, F.E. , A comparison of therapeutic relationships in psychoanalytic, nondirective, and Adlerian therapy. J. consult, PchhoL, 1950, 13, 436-Lp45. Fiedler, F.E. , The concept of an ideal therapeutic rela- tionship. J. consultL Psychol., 1950, 1&, 239—245. Fiedler, F.E. , A method of objective quantification of certain countertransference attitudes. J. Clin. Psychol., 1951, 1, 101—107. Fiedler, F..E , Factor analyses of psychoanalytic, non- directive, and Adlerian therapeutic relationships. g; consult, Psychol. , 1951, 15, 32—38. Fiedler, F-E., Quantitive studies on the role of therapists' feelings toward their‘patients. In O.H. Mowerer (Ed), Psychotherapy Theory and Research. New York: Ronald Press, 1953, 296—316. Fiedler, F.E. , The psychological—distance dimension in interpersonal relations. J. Pers., 1953, _23, 142—150. Fiedler, F.E. , and Senior, Kate., An exploratory study of unconscious feeling reactions in fifteen patient—therapist pairs. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 51, hh6—LL53. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 31+. 35. 36. 3'7. 137 Freud, S. , Group psychology and the analysis of the eg). New York: Boni £7 Liveright, 1922. Gage, N.L. , Accuracy of social perception and effectiveness in interpersonal relationships. J. Pers., 1953, _22, 128—141. Gage, N.L. , Explorations in the understanding of others. Educ. and ngchol. Meas., 1953, 13, 14—26. Gage, N.L. and Cronbach, L.J., Conceptual and method— ological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev., 1955,62, 411—422. Gist, N.P. and Halbert, L.A., Urban Society. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1941 Grummon, D.L. , Personality changes as a function of time in persons motivated for therapy. In C.R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond (Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954, 238—255. Halpern, H.H., Empathy, similarity, and self—satisfaction. J. consult, ngchol., 1955, _1_9_, 449-452. Harding, D.C.W., Social Psychology and Individual Values. London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1953. Hastorf, A.H. and Bender, I.E., A caution respecting the measurement of empathic ability. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 574—576. Hastorf, A.H. and Bender, I.E. , and Weintraub, D.J. , The influence of response patterns on the 'refined empathy score.’ J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51;, 341—343. Hilden, A.H., Q—sort correlation: stability and random choice statements. J. consult. Psychol., 1958,_2_2_, 45—50. Hollingshead, A.B. and Redlich, F.C., Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 1958. Honigmann, J.J. , Culture and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. 138 38. I—Iorney, K. , New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton Co., 1939. l 39. Isaacs, K.S., Fiedler, F.E. & Fiske, D.W., Some factors involved in the understanding of patients by q clinicians. University of Chicago, Chicago: Mimeo— graphed 1950. .’ 40. Jones, M., The Therapeutic Commurfiy. New York: B'asic Books, Inc., 1953. 41. Jourard, S.M., Personal Adjustment: An Approach Through the Study of the Healthy Personality. New York: Macmillan Co., 1958. 42. Kell , B.L., An experimental study of the ability to pre— dict the self—concept of an individual from his therapeutic interview behavior. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950. 43. Kell , B.L., Adaptation of Butler's Q—sort techniques correlation table. Austin: University of Texas, Mimeographed. , 1+4. Lecky, P., Self Consistency. Hamden, Conn.: Shoe ' . String Press, 1951. ' 1+5. Lesser, W.M., Relationship between empathic ability and. counseling progress. Unpublished doctoral dis— sertation, Mich. State University, 1958. 1+6. Lewin, K. , Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.) New York: Harper, 1951. 1+7. Lindgren, H.C., and Robinson, Jacqueline., Evaluation of Dymond"s test of insight and empathy. J. consult. Psychol., 1953, AZ, 172—176- 48. MacFarlane, T.G., Empathic understanding in an interpersonal interview situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952. 49‘ May, R., Existence: A New Dimension in Psychiatry and Psychology. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958, ¥ A 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 139 Miller, D., and Swanson, G.E. , The study of conflict. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1956. Mitchell, H.E. , l'Color conflict” as a defense. In G. Seward (Ed.) Clinical Studies in Culture Conflict. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1958. Newcomb, T.M., Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Normal, R.D., The interrelationship among acceptance— rejection, self—other identity, insight into self, and real- istic perception of others. J. soc. Psychol., 1953, 22, 205-235 Notcutt, B., and Silva, A.L.M., Knowledge of other people. J. abnorm_, soc. chhol. 1951, 4_6, 30—37. Opler, M.K., Anthropological aspects of psychiatry. In J.H. Masserman and J.L. Moreno (Eds.), Progress. in Psychotherapy. New York: Grune Er Stratton, 1959. Opler, M.K., Epidemiological studies of mental illness: Methods and scope of the midtown study, New York, N - Y. In D.M. Rioch (Ed.), Smposium on Preven— tive and Social Psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1958. Opler, M.K. and Singer, J.L., Ethnic differences in behavior and psychopathology. Int. J. soc. Psychiat. , 1956, _2_, 11—23. . , Reid, Dorothy K., and Snyder, W.U., Experiment on 'Recognition of Feelingl in nondirective psychotherapy. J. clin. Psychol., 1947, 3, 128—135. Rennie, A.C., Foreword. In M.K. Opler, Culture, Psychiatry and Human Values. Springfield, 111.: Thomas Press, 1956. Rennie, A.C. , Epidemiological studies of mental illness: Methods and scope of the midtown study, New York City. In D.M. Rioch (Ed.), Symposium on Preventive and SOCial Psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1958. 62. 63. 64. 66. 6’7. 72. '73. 140 l Richards, R.J., Self culture movement in New England. I Thesis (M.A.), Michigan State University, 1957. Rogers, C.R. , Client—Centered Therapy. Cambridge: 1 Riverside Press, 1951. ' l Rogers, C.R., Persons or science? A philosophical question. Amer. Psychol., 1955, 1_0, 267—276. Rogers, C.R. and Dymond, Rosalind F., (Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. Rogers, C.R., Perceptual reorganization in client— centered therapy. In R.R. Blake and G.V. Ramsey, (Eds.), Perception: An Approach to Personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1951, 307—327. Rosen, S. , Changes in the representation of self, other, and interrelationship in client,centered therapy. J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 2, 271—278. Sears, R.R., Experimental studies of projection: I attribution of traits. J. soc. Psychol., 1936, Z, 151—163. Sears, R.R., et a1. Patterns of Child Rearirg. Evanston, 111.: Row, Patterson and Co., 1957. . Seeman, J. , Counselor judgements of therapeutic process and outcome. In C.R. Rogers and R. Dymond (Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: Uni— versity of Chicago Press, 1954. Seward, G. , Clinical Studies in Cultural Conflict. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1958. ‘ Seward, G. , Psychotherapy and Culture Conflicts. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1956. Shaw, R.W., Some aspects of self—insight. New York: Columbia University. 1931 . Silver, A.W., The self—concept: its relationship to parental and peer acceptance. Thesis (Ph.D.), Mich. State University, 1957. '74. 75. '76. '77. 83. 141 Snygg, D. and Combs, A.W., Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference in Psychology. New York: Harper, 1949. Stephenson, W., The Study of Behavior. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953. Strupp, H.H., The effect of the psychotherapist's personal analysis upon his technique. J. consult. Psychol., 1955, 12, 197—204. Taft, R., The ability to judge people. Psychol. Bull., 1955, _52, 1-23. Thompson, C., Psychoanalysis: Evolution and Develop— ment. New York: Hermitage House, 1950. Warner, W.L., Social Class in America. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960,. Wolberg, L.R., The Technique of Psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954., Wolf, R., and Murray, H.A., an experiment in judging personalities. J. Psychol., 1937, __3_, 345—365. Wyatt, F. , The self—experience of the psychotherapist. J. consult. Psychol., 1948, 13, 82—87. Wylie, R.C., The Self Concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. APPE NDICES 142 APPE NDIX I Questionnaire for Background Information Name: Date: All of the items on this questionnaire are concerned with your life and experiences before you reached the age of 17 years. Please keep this in mind as you fill it out. Please proceed. l . List the types of work your father (or stepfather) did before you were 17 years old (If you. lived. with both your father and a step— father during this period, list the types of work both did). Types of Employment Duration of Father Step- Employment (Check One) father 2 . Was your father (or stepfather) in business for himself during this period? What kind of business was he in? 3 . Did your mother (or stepmother) work during this period?__ If "yes," list the types of work she did. Types of Employment Duration of Mother Step— Employment (Check One) mother 1+. Please indicate the source of the familyls income during this l period by checking the appropriate proportion of the total family income obtained from the following sources: (Check) None One Third One Half Two Thirds All I Inherited Wealth Earned Wealth Profit and Fees Salary and Wages Public Relief Other (list) AAAAAA vvvvvv AAAAAA VVVVV‘V AAAAAA VVVVV‘V VVVVVV Approximately how many different houses did the family live in before you were 17‘? The house in which we lived for the longest duration during this period was probably valued in the price range: (check one) a ( ) Less than $5,000. b. ( ) $5,000-$9,999 c ( ) $1o,ooo—$14,999 d. ( ) $15.000v—$l9.999 e. ( ) $20,000—$29,999 2?. ( ) $30,000—$.39,999 g ( ) $40,000 or over We lived in this house years and it "was about years old at the ‘ : time of my best memory of it. Other houses in which we lived during this period were, with l respect to value and size, (check one). a. ( ) far superior to this house b. ( ) somewhat superior to c. ( ) about the same as this house this house e. ( ) very inferior to this house d. ( ) slightly inferior to this house The house we lived in for the longest duration before I was 17 (check one) a. ( ) was in the suburbs b. ( ) was in the city 0. ( ) was in a rural area In comparison to the other neighborhoods in the city or community, our neighborhood was generally considered (check one) a ( ) the highest b. ( ) quite high c. ( ) Just above average d. ( ) average e. ( ) just below average f. ( ) low g ( ) the lowest 11. 12. 13. 12+. 15. 145 Most of the other houses in which we lived during this period (check one) were a. ( ) in the suburbs. b. ( ) in the city. c. ( ) in a rural area. Before I was 17, we lived mostly (check one) 0‘93 g. ( ( ( ( ) ) vvvv ) on farms. in towns with populations less than 2,000. in towns with populations less than 10,000, but more than 2,000. in towns with populations less than 25,000, but more than 10,000. in cities With populations less than 100,000, but more than 25,000. in cities with populations less than 300,000 but more than 100,000. in cities with populations over 300,000. The cities or communities in which we lived before I was 17 are mostly located in the (check one) a. d. ( ( ) ) West South b. ( ) Midwest (North Central) 0. ( ) East e. ( ) others (list) In the neighborhoods where I lived, most people (check one) {1:0 0‘93 In these neighborhoods, a b. (DQO ) ) ) ) lived in apartments or flats. were renting homes. were buying homes. had paid for their homes. (check "yes" or "no" for all items) people were always talking politics. Yes—No as a rule people went to church almost every week. Yes__No___ people put a lot of emphasis on education. Yes__No people married, as a rule, before they were 21. Yes—No— as a rule people were quite concerned about morals. Yes No 16. 1’7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 . 23 . 24. 25 . 26.. 2'7 . 28. 29. 146 Most of the families in the neighborhood where we lived for the longest duration probably had incomes which were (check one) a. ( ) much greater than ours. b. ( ) somewhat greater than ours. c. ( ) about the same as ours. d. ( ) somewhat less than ours. e. ( ) considerably less than ours. What is your educational level (highest level achieved in school? What is your father's (or stepfatheris) educational level? What is your mother's (or stepmotherls) educational level? If your parents separated or divorced, how old were you when this occurred? If your mother is deceased, how old were you when she passed? If your father is deceased, how old were you when he passed? lNith whom did you live until you were 17? (Do not use names.) How many of your sisters are younger than you? How many older? How many of your brothers are younger than you? How many older? Do you have stepsisters or stepbrothers? How many? What was your mother's age at the time of your birth? and your father's? I was disciplined more by (check one) a. ( ) my mother b. ( ) my father. c. ( ) about the same by each. What is (was) your parents' religious faith? 147 . 30. Before I was 17, my parents (check one) a. ( ) insisted that I attend church. b. ( ) strongly encouraged me to attend church. { c. ( ) moderately encouraged me to attend church. | d. ( ) did not encourage me to attend church. 31. Before I was 17, my parents (check the most appropriate) put a lot of emphasis on education. showed a desire to have me acquire an education, but used little pressure. showed little concern about education. seemed to have a negative attitude toward education in general. 0‘91 0 o. . AA Vv 32. My parents disciplined me mostly (You may check more than one, but put the appropriate age range at which the type of discipline occurred before the corresponding letter.) Age Range a. ( ) by explaining the meaning and implications of l my wrongdoings. b. ( ) by making me feel somewhat ashamed for my : misdeeds. - C. ( ) by showing me that to be loved and appreciated, , you must be good. i d. ( ) by withholding privileges from me. ' e. ( ) by making me do some strenuous or dreadful task. f ( ) by locking me in my room or some other form of forced isolation. g. ( ) by making me go to my room or to bed. h. ( ) by scolding me. i . ( ) by whipping or spanking me. j . ( ) by other methods (list) 33. When I became a teen—ager, my parents (check one) were very strict about not allowing me to keep late hours. showed concern about me keeping late hours, but were not too strict. C. ( ) more or less felt that I could take care of myself and did not worry too much about it. VV a.( b»( 31+. 35. 36. 37. 38. 114.8 My parents seemed very concerned about the types of people with whom I associated. (Check ”True" or "False”) True False They permitted me to participate in many family decisions. (check) True False For the most part, the communities in which I was reared were made up of (check one) only whites only Negroes both Negroes and whites only Orientals several races, including Negroes and whites. others (explain) H‘ (D Q- 0 0" 9) o a a a a o AAA/\AA VVVVVV List the races from which you had associates, classmates or close friends before you were 17. (Indicate after the races listed whether persons of the race were close friends, class— mates or associates. If a given person was all three or two of the three, indicate this. Please include your own race.) In the city or community Where you lived for the longest duration before you were 17, approximately what percentage of the total population did the following races or ethnic groups constitute? Negroes % Whites % Jews % Orientals % American Indians % Mexicans % Other Spanish Americans % Others (list) In IINI ’jlll‘l. . ..—..l. 1.: . a d 111-9 39. Please list the honorary and civic positions held by your father ‘ before your seventeenth birthday. 1+0. Please list the most frequent recreational activities of your parents. Lpl . How old are you? What is your sex? What is your , : race? Thank you for your participation in this study. We realize that we asked a lot of you. We sincerely hope that as a result Of your cooperation and that of others like you, this study will make a contribution to the understanding of some of the important needs of people and how they can best be met in the counseling situation. Alex J. Cade Richard Lawrenc e APPE NDIX II Judged Progress Scale Case Rating Scale Name or Number of Client Counselor Date Directions: . We should like to have two ratings for each item of this scale. Place a B in the box appropriate for the beginning phase of the case and an E at the point apprOpriate for the end of the case. The Process 1. Degree to which therapy was an intellectual-cognitive process for the client. l 2 3 1+ 5 6 7 8 9 Little or none Maximally or exclusively 2. The degree to which therapy was an emotional—experiential process for the client. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Little or none Maximally or exclusively 3. The degree to which the client perceived therapy as a process of personal exploration or as specific analysis of life situations. 1 2 3 Li— . 5 6 7 8 9 Situational Personal Exploration 150 151 The Relationship 1+. The degree to which the client has used the relationship itself as a focus for therapy. l 2 3 1+ 5 6 '7 8 9 Negligible extent Maximally 5. Estimate of the client's attitude toward you during the course of therapy. 1 2 3 Li 5 6 7 8 9 Strong dislike Strong liking or respect 6. Estimate of your feeling toward the client. 1 2 3 1+ 5 8 7 8 9 Strong dislike Strong liking or respect The Outcome 7. The degree of personal integration of the client. 1 2 3 Li 5 6 '7 8 9 Highly disorganized Optimally or defensively organized. integrated 8. The life adjustment of the client. 1 2 3 2+ 5 6 7 8 9 Low High 152 See note belowfi< 9. Degree of satisfaction of the client with the outcome of therapy. 1 2 3 LP 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly dissatisfied Extremely safisfied 10. Your rating of the outcome of therapy. 1 2 3 2+ 5 E) 7 8 9 Complete Marked failure Success >: (N=l+95) Characteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf ‘ f f% Wf f f% Wf 14. Reliability 46 23 268 c 35 14 200 2 5 12 83 16.6 480 15. Ability to COOperate 30 1.5 140 45 18 210 5 10 26 80 16.0 376 16. Ability to Love 22 11 148 52 21 313 6 13 30 80 16.0 491 17. Sincerity 58 29 393 20 8 107 0 0 0 78 15.6 500 18. Understanding for Others 30 15 166 42 17 272 5 10 21 77 15.4 459 19. Ambition 44 22 193 22 9 104 9 21 34 75 15.0 331 20. Civic Mind— edness 26 13 120 47 19 231 0 0 O 73 14.6 351 21. Respect for Others 30 15 161 30 12 160 11 24 67 71 14.2 388 22. Pride 24 12 136 20 8 144 10 22 56 54 10.8 336 23. Courtesy _ 26 13 149 22 9 127 4 9 16 52 10.4 292 24. Economic Security 10 5 48 42 17 241 0 0 0 52 10.4 289 25. Sound Rea— soning 28 14 160 17 7 100 0 0 O 45 9.0 260 26. Humility 36 18 173 7 3 35 0 0 0 43 8.6 208 27. Faith 20 10 127 ~ 22 9 136 0 0 0 42 8.4 263 187 App. VI. (continued) Non- therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=200) (N=250) (N=45 (N=495) Characteristics f ~f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 28. Loyalty 22 11 129 20 8 88 0 0 O 42 8.4 217 29. Abstinence from Alcohol 4 2 5 35 14 157 1 2 5 40 8.4 167 30. Courageous— , . ness 10 5 71' 25 10 87 6 13 39 42 8.4 197 31. Self—Confi— dence 16 8 85 13 5 61 11 24 58 40 8.0 204 32. Individual- ity 20 10 105 7 3 36 12 27 82 39 7.8 223 33. Happy mar— > riage 4 2 18 33 13 66 O 0 O 37 7.4 84 34. Undogmatic 26 13 121 10 4 59 O 0 0 36 7.2 180 35. Truthfulness 12 6 94 22 9 148 2 4 8 36 7.2 250 36. Self-Re— liance 8 4 38 15 6 61 13 30 91 36 7.2 190 37. Self—Im— . . provement 10 5 29: 20 8 83 5 10 26 35 7.0 138 38. Respect for Authority 4 2 26 30 12 156 O 0 O 34 6.8 182 39. Adapability 24 12 129 3 1 19 6 13 34 33 6.6 182 40. Vfill Power 12 6 47 15 6 61 5 10 19 32 6.4 127 188 App, VI, (continued) Non- therapy Non- College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group I Total (N=2oo) (N=250) (N=l+5 l (N,=Li9’5) _C_haracteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 41. A Purpose in Life 18 9 111 13 5 35 10 22 48 31 6.2 194 42. Thrifty 6 3 15 25 10 100 0 0 O 31 6.2 115 43. Compassion 10 5 47 15 6 54 5 10 26 30 6.0 127 44. Unselfish 12 6 73 13 5 61 3 6 12 28 5.6 146 45. No Racial . Prejudice 14 7 61 10 4 26 4 9 18 28 5.6 105 46. Responsi- . bflfiy 10 5 59 15 6 71 1 2 4 26 5.2 134 47. Good Health 6 3 14 20 8 98 0 O 0 26 5.2 112 48. Activity Con— science 8 4 25 18 7 65 O 0 0 26 5.2 90 49. Self-Control 6 3 29 10 4 53 10 22 59 26 5.2 141 50. Tendency to Treat Others.) as One Mshes to be Treated 2 1 .18 18 7 83 0 O 0 20 5.0 101 51. Emotional Control 8 4 37 7 3 40 5 10 27 20 5.0 104 52. Generosity 10 5 57 13 5 48 1 2 2 24 4.8 107 53. Temperance 312 6 41_ 8 3 19 4 9 16 24 4.8 76 189 App. VI. (continued) Non- therapy Non- College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=2oo) LN=250 (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf f% Wf f f% Wf 54. Control of Temper 2 1 5 15 6 52 15 21 24 4.8 78 55. Ability to Look For— ward 8 4 42 15 6 74 O 0 23 4.6 116 56. Charity 10 5 52 13 5 7O 0 O 23 4.6 122 57. Forgiving Attitude 2 1 3 20 8 55 O 0 22 4.4 88 58. Ability to Select Good Associates 4 2 18 18 7 61 0 0 22 4.4 79 59. Patience 10 5 50 7 3 29 10 .22 22 4.4 101 60. Personal Ability 2 1 7 15 6 62 4 7 19 3 8 76 61. Tolerance 4 2 83 10 4 64 9 12 18 3.6 159 62. Sexual Ad— justment 6 3 23 5 2 18 15 23 18 3 6 64 63. Easygoing 1o 5 48 7 3 38 o o 17 3.14 86 64. Physical ' Attractive— ness 8 4 27 7 3 32 2 3 16 3 2 62 65. Maturity o 3 32 7 3 20 o 14 16 3 2 66 190 App. VI. (continued) Non— therapy Non— College therapy Students Er Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=20fl (N=250) (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics f f% Wf f 13% Wf f% Wf f 13% Wf 66. Ability to Accept Criticism 4 2 8 7 3 l8 5 10 23 16 3.2 49 67. Capacity for Leading Others 8 4 37 7 3 32 O O O 15 3.0 69 68. Interest in Sports 0 O O 15 6 67 O O O 15 3.0 67 69. Confidence in Others 2 1 l4 l3 5 52 O O O 15 3.0 66 70. Respect for Parents 6 3 35 7 3 32 2 4 8 15 3.0 75 71. Interest in People 6 3 43 7 3 35 l 2 l 14 2.8 89 72. Hobbies 4 2 5 10 4 48 O O O 14 2.8 53 73. Many inter— ests 12 6 37 2 1 7 O O O 14 2.8 44 74. Respectability 4 2 14 10 4 37 O O O 14 2.8 51 75. Good Conver» sationalist 4 2 6 10 4 42 O O O 14 2.8 48 76. Self—Under— standing 4 2 18 3 1 3O 7 15 36 14 2.8 84 77. Self—Accep— tance 2 l 2 5 2 l3 7 15 42 14 2.8 57 191 App. VI. (continued) T Non— ! therapy Non— t College therapy i Students 8 Prison I College Therapy Inmates i Graduates I Group Total (N=200) ! (N:250) ‘ (N=45) (N=495) I Characteristics f f% Wf-I f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 78. Stability 4 2 43 5 2 3O 4 9 17 ‘13 2.6 90 79. Abstinence from Speak— ing Out of Turn 6 3 2O 7 3 2O 0 O O 13 2.6 40 80. Versatility 4 2 11 5 2 26 4 9 13 13 2.6 50 81. Belief That All Men Are Equal 6 3 27 7 3 38 o o o 13 2.6 65 ; 82. Popularity 2 1 7 10 4 41 1 2 3 13 2.6 51 3 83. Honor 4 2 l6 7 3 46 l 2 l 12 2.4 63 ‘1 84. Good Sports— manship 2 1 6 10 4 43 O O O 12 2.4 49 85. Ability to Maintain Friendship O O O 10 4 55 2 4 7 12 2.4 62 86. Aggressive— ness 6 3 37 3 1 12 3 6 18 12 2.4 67 87. Vocational Skills 2 1 2 10 4 56 O O O 12 2.4 58 88. Happy 2 1 8 O O O 10 22 63 12 2.4 30 89. Common Sense 4 2 29 7 3 44 O O 0 11 2.2 73 192 App, VI. (continued) Non— therapy Non- College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=200) (N=250) (N=45 L (N=495) Characteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% .Wf f f% Wf_ 90. iATillingness to Learn 4 2 22 7 3 16 O O O 11 2.2 38 91. Ability to Express Oneself . Well 4 2 14 3 1 11 4 9 16 11 2.2 41 92. Empathy 4 2 27 5 2 2O 1 2 4 10 2.0 51 93. Humanitar— ian Interest 0 O O 10 4 40 O O O 10 2.0 40 94. Interest in Recreational Activities 0 0 O 10 4 31 0 0 0 10 2.0 31 95..Love of Life 10 5 56 O 0 O O O 0 10 2.0 56 96. Self—Satisfied 0 0 0 O 0 0 10 22 63 10 2.0 53 97. Genuineness 4 2 17 4 2 16 O O O O 1.8 33 98. Fairness 2 1 3 7 3 31 O O O 9 1.8 34 99. Ability to Know Others 2 1 9 7 3 28 O 0 0 91.8 37 100. Ability to Mind Own Business 2 1 1 7 3 17 0 0 0 9 1.8 18 101, Compatibility 4 2 5 5 2 22 0 0 O 9 1.8 27 193 App. VI. (continued) Non— i therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison — College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (R: Q) (N=250) (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics 1" f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 102. Self—Esteem 2 1 4 3 l 10 4 9 16 91.8 30 103. Abstinence From Ob— scenity 4 2 24 5 2 32 O O 0 91.8 56 104. A Sense of Justice 4 2 9 3 1 6 1 2 1 81.6 16 105. Apprecia— tiveness 4 2 12 3 1 7 1 2 2 8 1.6 21 106. Make Most of Oneself 4 3 25 O O O 4 9 17 8 1 6 42 107. Poise 4 2 24 3 1 l 1 2 3 81.6 28 108. Realistic 4 2 2O 3 1 13 l 2 4 8 l 6 37 109. Frankness 2 1 4 5 2 23 O O O 7 1.4 27 110. Tendencyto Voice Opin— ions 2 1 15 3 l 10 2 4 6 71.4 31 111. Obedience 2 1 7 5 2 23 O O O 7 1.4 30 112. Good Listen— er ! 2 1 3 5 2 12 O O O 7 1.4 15 113. Knowledge of Governmentl 2 1 3 5 2 13 o o o 7 1.4 16 194 App. VI. (continued) Non— therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=200 L J N=2501 (N=45) (N=495 L Characteristics f f} Wf f1 13% Wf f f} Wf f f% Wf 114. Democratic Principles 2 1 17 5 2 18 0 O O 7 1.4 35 115. Tendency to Make Self— Sacrifices 2 1 8 5 2 10 0 O O 7 1.4 18 116. Conformity l 2 1 2 3 1 10 2 4 5 7 1.4 17 117. Neighborly I O O O 7 3 32 O O O 7 1.4 32 E 118. Plan Before) Acting l 2 1 8 5 2 16 o o o 7 1.4 24 119. Ability to ‘ Receive and Give 2 1 6 5 2 16 O 0 0 7 1.4 22 120. Abstinence from Gos- siping 2 1 2 5 2 19 O O O 7 1.4 21 121. Objectivity 4 2 11 3 1 8 O 0 0 7 1.4 19 122. Tendency Not to Judge Others 2 1 1 5 2 18 0 O 0 7 1.4 19 123. Modesty 4 2 10 3 1 7 O 0 O 7 1.4 17 124. Ability to ' See Good In Others 2 1 1 5 2 26 0 O 0 7 1.4 27 125. Alertness 4 2 15 3 1 13 0 O O 7 1.4 28 App. VI. (Continued) Non— l therapy 2 Non— College ( therapy Students 8 I Prison College I Therapy Inmates Graduates ' Group Total (N=200L .w=25o) 1 (N42 (N=495) l Characteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf 1 1% Wf £7; Wf 126. Conscien— é tiousness 4 2 15 3 1 13 l o o 1.4 28 127. Ingenuity 4 2 11 3 1 4 o o 1.4 15 i 128. Reason— ‘ ableness 2 1 2 5 2 18 O O 1,4 20 129. Tendency to Be On Time 4 2 5 3 1 6 O O 1.4 11 130. Respect for Aged 2 1 1 5 2 9 o o 1.4 10 131. Security 2 l 6 3 1 8 4 7 1.4 21 132. Affection 2 1 11 3 1 8 4 10 1,4 29 133 Tendency to Keep Bills Paid 2 1 1 5 2 23 O O 1 4 24 134 Ability to Make Decis— ions Easily 2 1 6 3 1 13 2 1 1.2 20 135. Ability to Concentrate 2 1 4 3 1 16 2 2 1.2 22 136 Flexibility 2 l 5 2 l l 4 7 1.2 13 137 Desire for Learning New Things 2 l 10 3 l 10 O O l O 20 196 App. VI. (continued) Non— therapy . Non— College ' therapy Students 8 ‘ Prison College Therapy , 'Inmates Graduates Group Total ' (N=200) (N=250) (19:45) (N=495) Characteristics 1 f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 138. Patience Vxlith Others 2 1 11 3 1 15 O O 0 5 1.0 26 139. Tendency to Admit when Wrong 2 1 9 3 1 1 O O O 5 1.0 10 140. Good Com— panionship 2 1 8 3 1 4 O O O 5 1.0 12 141. Creativity 2 1 5 3 1 7 0 O O 5 1.0 12 i 142. Decency 2 1 8 3 1 12 0 0 O 5 1.0 20 E 143. Tactfulness 2 1 11 3 1 7 O O O 5 1.0 18 144. Abstinence From Snob— 2 1 6 3 1 13 O O O 5 1.0 19 bery , 114.5. Good repu— tation 0 O O 5 2 6 0 0 O 5 1.0 6 . 146. Graciousness'2 1 4 3 1 1 O O 0 5 1.0 5 147. Level— headedness 2 1 2 3 1 5 O O O 5 1.0 7 148. Have Pro— gressive Attitude 0 0 0 5 2 16 0 0 O 5 1.0 16 149. Fortitude 2 1 5 3 1 10 0 0 0 5 1.0 15 197 App. VI. (continuIed) Non- therapy N_on-— College Itherapy Students 8 [Prison College Therapy I nm ate s Graduate s Group T otal (N=200) (N=250) (N=495) Characteristics I f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 150. Understand-J ing of Humart Nature 2 1 10 3 1 8 O O O 5 1.0 18 151. Discretion 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 5 1.0 7 152. Abstinence From Self- Righteousness 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 5 1.0 7 153. Good Conduct 0 O O 3 1 32 2 4 8 5 1.0 40 N 154. Social Status 4 21 0 O O O O O 4 .8 21 155. Tendency Not To Push One— self Into Groups 2 H H N H |_\ O O o .1:— (D N 156. Interest in Good Reading 2 1 1 2 1 5 O 0 O 4 .8 . 6 157. Ability to Recognize That There Are Un- attainable Goals. 2 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 O 4 .8 5 158. ReSpect for Nonmaterial Things 2 1 5 2 1 1 0 O O 4 .8 6 198 App. VI. (continued) Non- therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=2oo) (N=250) (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics 125 f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf 159. Under- . standing 4 of Nature I2 1 6 2 1 4 O O O 4 8 10 I 160. Patience With Self 0 0 0 2 1 12 2 4 9 4 8 21 161. Organi— zation 1 1 4 1 O 1 2 410 4 8 15 i 162. Tendency II Not to be II I Inhibited II1 1 4 1 0 1 I 2 4 8 4 8 13 l '2 163. Not Over- ’ bearing to Others 111 212 £121 4.84 i 164. Intellectual ‘ Curiosity 4 2 17 0 0 0 O 0 0 4 .8 17 i 165. Tendency to Use What Is Avail— able to Best Advantage 2 1 5 1 0 1 0 O O 3 .6 6 166. Tendency to Enjoy One's Work 113 101 1263.610 167. Contentment O O 0 2 1 4 4 1 2 3 .6 5 168. Ability to Accept Chan— ges 2 1 8 0 O O 1 2 1 3 .6 9 199 App. VI. (continued) I Non- therapy INon- College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy IInm ates Graduates Group Total N=200 L (N=2SQL (N=453 (N=4951 Characteristics f f% Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf- fZ 'Wf 169. Tendency to Think Construc- tively O O 0 3 1 12 O O O 6 12 170. Apprecia- tion for Music 0 O 0 3 1 11 O O O 6 11 171. Outgoing 2 1 19 O O O 1 2 4 6 23 172. Resource- fulness O O O 3 1 18 O O O 6 18 173. Liveliness 2 1 6 1 O 1 0 O 0 .6 7 174. Cultured 2 1 11 O O O 0 O O 4 11 175. Abstinence from Smok- ing 2 1 2 O O O O O O .4 2 176 . Esthetic Sensitivity 2 1 4 O O O 0 O O 4 4 177. Ability to Follow as Well as Lead 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 5 178. Sensitivity 2 1 7 O O O O O O .4 7 179. Persistence 2 1 11 O O O O O O 4 11 180. Tendency to be a Good Provider 0 O O 2 1 10 O O O 4 10 200 App. VI. (continued) Non therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy I nm ate s Graduate 8 Group T otal '(N=200) (N=250) (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics f 15% Wf f fz. Wf f 13% Wf . f. .f% Wf 181. Tendency to Encourage Others IO 0 O 2 1 10 O O O 2 4 10 182. Usefulness O O O 2 1 10 0 O O 2 4 10 183. Dignity 2 1 8 O O O O O O 2 .4 8 184. Willingness to Teach Others 2 1 8 O O O O O O 2 .4 8 185. Pride in Fellow Man 2 1 8 O O O O O O 2 .4 8 186. Esprit de Corp 2 1 8 O O O O O O 2 .4 8 187. Conserva— tiveness 2 1 7 O O O O O O 2 04 7 188. Devotion 2 1 7 O O O 0 O O 2 .4 7 189. Thankfulness O 0 O 1 1 7 1 2 1 2 .4 8 190. Consistency 1 1 4 O O O 1 2 6 2 .4 10 191. Charm 0 O 0 1 1 5 1 2 4 2 .4 9 192. Adventurous 1 1 2 1 O 1 O O O 2 .4 3 193. Competitive— ness 1 1 2 1 O 1 O O 0 2 .4 3 201 App. VI. (continued) Non— therapy Non— College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy .- Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=200) (N=250) (N=45) (N=495) Characteristics f f% Wf f 15% Wt f f% Wf f f% Wf 194. Imagination 1 1 2 O O O 1 2 1 2 .4 3 195. Simplicity 1 1 1 0 O 0 1 2 3 2 .4 4 196. Ability to Speak Other Languages 0 O 0 2 1 8 O 0 O 2 .4 8 197 Mobility 1 1 5 O O O O O O 1 .2 5 198. Ability to Givé to a Worthy Cause 1 1 3 O O O O O O 1 .2 3 199. Ability to Give Without Receiving 1 1 2 0 O 0 0 0 O 1 .2 2 200. Ability to Take Con— crete Action 1 1 1 O O O O 0 O 1 .2 1 201. Tendency to Seek Per-— fection 1 1 1 O O O O O O 1 .2 1 202. Kindness Toward Nature 1 1 1 O O O O O O 1 .2 1 203. Ability to Maintain a Confidence 1 1 1 O O 0 O O 0 1 .2 1 Appendix VI. (continued) 202 Non- therapy Non- College therapy Students 8 Prison College Therapy Inmates Graduates Group Total (N=200L (N=250) 1N=45> (N=495 Characteristics f} Wf f f% Wf f f% Wf f f} Wf Practicality 1 1 0 O 0 O 0 0 1 .2 1 205. Abstinence from Envy 0 0 0 1 1 1 O O 0 1 .2 1 206. Magnanirnity 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 .2 1 207. Rigidity o o o 1 1 1 o o o 1 .2 1 208. Concern for Self- Preserva- tion 1 1 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 1 .2 1 APPENDIX VII Other Cultural Background Factors and Their Weights for Counselor- 1 Client Agreement Factor Disagreement Agreement 1. Population of community -1 +1 2. Geographical location of community (a. South, b. West, c. Midwest- north central, d. East, e. others -1 +1 3. Home ownership among neighborhood constituents (majority) (a. Lived in apartments or flats, b. were renting homes, 0. were buying homes, d.. had paid for their homes) -1 +1 4. Emphasis put on politics by neighborhood constituents -1 +1 5. Emphasis put on religion by neighborhood constituents —1 +2 6. Emphasis put on education by neighborhood constituents -1 +2 7. Emphasis put on moral practices by neighborhood constituents -1 +2 8. Emphasis put on late marriages by neighborhood constituents -1 +2 9. Order of birth -1 +1 10. Only child -1 +2 11. Only child of one's sex -1 +2 203 204 Appendix VII (continued) Factor Disagreement Agreement 12. Parents separated or divorced -1 +2 13. Mother passed away prior to or before individual reached age of 17 -1 +3 14. Father passed away before in- dividual reached the age of 17 -1 +4 15. Lived with father after parental separation or divorce -1 +2 16. Lived with mother after parental separation or divorce -1 +2 17. Lived with persons foster parents before age 17 -1 +2 18. Mother's age at time of birth -1 +1 19. Father's age at time of birth -1 +2 20. Community location (a. sub- urbs, b. in the city, 0. rural area) -1 +2 21. Source of discipline (a. mostly mother, b. mostly father, c. about the same by each) —1 +3 22. Method of discipline (a. mostly corporal punishment, b. mostly scordling, c. mostly physical deprivation, d. mostly psycho- logical deprivation, e. mostly rejection, f. mostly guilt and shame inducing, g. mostly by explanation and understanding -1 +2 23. Parental emphasis on church aflendance -1 +5 205 Appendix VI I ( continued ) Factor Disagreement Agreement 24. Parental emphasis on education -1 +5 25. Parental religious faith -1 +3 26. Curfew during adolescent years -1 +3 27. Relative freedom of selecting associates -1 +2 28. Participation in family decisions -1 +3 29. Racial and ethnic composition of community -1 +2 30. Actual association with members of other races —1 +2 31. Civic involvement of parents -1 +3 32. Use of leisure -1 +1 33. Race _1 +1 34. Mother's employment (employed or unemployed) -1 +1 35. Family stability -1 +2 APPENDIX VIII Results Obtained by Means of the Study of Values The Allport-Vernon Study of Values was administered to the constituents of the three groups at the beginning and end of the counseling period. This was done in order to determine whether or not counseling would result in a change in values. A second purpose of this aSpect of the study was to determine the relationship between change in values and counseling progress as measured by the self scales. The Allport-Vernon Study of Values embraces six basic values or motives. They are: theoretical values, economic values, aesthetic values, social values, political values, and religious values. It was assumed that if individuals involved in therapy tend to show a change in values over the counseling period, they would be most likely to show an increase in social and personal values and a decrease in values embracing ideo- logical concepts. Consequently, constituents of the therapy group were expected to show an increase in aesthetic, economic and social values but they were expected to show a decrease in theoretical, political, and, perhaps, religious values over the period of counseling. The changes in values effected by the three groups over the 206 counseling period are presented in Table i. 207 From the results presented in Table i, it seems that, in general, the Therapy Group showed a greater degree of change in values than the other two groups. Table i. Changes in Mean Scores for the Six Values Embraced by the Study of Values Over the Period of Counseling for the Three Groups Students With Value Therapy Group Nontherapy Group Study Habit Problems Pre- Post - ‘ :‘.< Pre- Post- * Pre- Post- * ther- ther- Change ther- ther- Change ther- ther- Change apy apy apy 3P1 apy QEY ' Theo- refical 41.1 40.8 - .3 43.6 43.8 + .2 40.7 43.8 +3.1 Eco- nomic 36.9 38.9 +2.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 46.5 44.3 ~2.2 Aes- thetic 40.3 43.5 +3.2 39.1 39.0 - .1 38.0 37.1 - .9 Soc- ial 39.0 40.0 +1.0 37.7 37.9 + .2 36.8 36.3 - .5 Poli- tical 39.1 38.8 — .3 39.8 39.9 + .1 42.0 43.2 +1.2 Reli- gious 41.0 37.6 -3.4 39.1 39.3 + .2 36.6 35.6 —1.0 >1